Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/305
This regulation ensures counterparties actively use accounts for clearing derivatives at EU-authorized CCPs. It specifies operational conditions (IT connectivity, capacity for increased activity, annual stress tests), representativeness obligations (clearing trades representative of their portfolio, particularly for interest rate derivatives), and reporting requirements (data on activities, risk exposures, compliance). Annexes detail derivative classes and reporting templates.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, updating financial allocations for Member States under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It adjusts funds for direct payments to farmers and rural development projects based on strategic decisions by Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Slovakia. The regulation modifies Annexes V, IX, and XI, reflecting changes in direct payment allocations and Union support for rural development for 2023-2027.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/276
This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in the People’s Republic of China. It confirms material injury to the Union industry due to dumped imports and establishes anti-dumping duty rates ranging from 31.0% to 54.3% for various companies. A valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration is required for the application of these rates.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/274
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty of 79.0% applicable to all imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating from the People’s Republic of China. This replaces the previous system of varied duties for individual exporters.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/277
This regulation grants Union authorization for the ‘Hydrogen Peroxide Group’ of biocidal products, including disinfectants, algaecides, and veterinary hygiene products, under product-types 2, 3, and 4. It details conditions for market availability and use, including specific application methods, required personal protective equipment, and risk mitigation measures, as outlined in the Annex (Summary of Product Characteristics).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/295
This regulation 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. This suspension is from February 7, 2026, to August 6, 2026. Businesses involved in trade between the EU and the United States for the specified products will not be subject to these rebalancing measures during the period of suspension.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/270
This regulation introduces provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of 1,4-Butanediol (BDO) originating from China, Saudi Arabia, and the USA. The specific anti-dumping duty rates for each country and company are listed in Article 1(2) and (3). The constructed normal value for China uses costs from Brazil. The lesser duty rule is applied. Importers must present a specific commercial invoice to get the company-specific duty rates.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding restrictive measures against Russia
The CJEU clarifies that the import ban applies to *all* goods listed in Annex XXI (including motor vehicles under CN code 8703), without needing to prove that each specific import generates significant revenue for Russia. The listing in Annex XXI is sufficient to trigger the prohibition. Further, Article 3i(3ad) allowing registration of vehicles present in the EU on December 19, 2023, does *not* apply to vehicles that were illegally imported in violation of the import ban under Article 3i(1).
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding Directive 2014/23/EU on concession contracts
The CJEU clarifies that national regulations granting a pre-emption right to the promoter of a project financing procedure in concession contracts, allowing them to match the best offer and be awarded the contract, is incompatible with EU law, as they violate the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and effective competition.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding the restrictive measures against Russia
The Court rejected the appeal of State Development Corporation “VEB.RF” against the restrictive measures against actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. The Court acknowledged an error in the General Court’s approach to assessing the violation of property rights but concluded that the restrictive measures were still justified under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding Directive 2013/32/EU on international protection
The CJEU clarifies that the Member States must define criteria in their national law for determining a connection between the applicant for international protection and the third country concerned. Also, the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection must verify whether there is a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, even if its national law does not grant it such a power.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding the European Parliament’s decision to waive the parliamentary immunity
The Court of Justice annulled the European Parliament’s decisions to waive the appellants’ immunity because of impartiality of the rapporteur within the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI Committee) who handled the waiver requests. The Court emphasized the importance of impartiality as a component of good administration under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding MON 810 GMO maize
The Court found that Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 and Implementing Decision 2016/321 are valid and consistent with primary EU law, including the free movement of goods, non-discrimination, and freedom to conduct a business.The Court clarified that decisions adopted under Article 26c(1) and (3) do not require specific justification based on the grounds listed in Article 26b(3) of Directive 2001/18.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding figurative mark “APE TEES”
The Court of Justice ruled that the earlier right must be valid not only at the time of filing the EU trade mark application but also when EUIPO makes its decision on the opposition.
Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment regarding access to documents related to the votes of Member States in a comitology procedure
The CJEU clarifies that Member States’ votes in comitology procedures can fall under the exception of “opinions for internal use,” but this does not automatically justify a refusal to grant access. The Commission must still demonstrate that disclosure would “seriously undermine” the decision-making process.
EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a public tender for the operation of scheduled air services on the route Reykjavík – Vestmannaeyjar – Reykjavík in Iceland
The specific route (Reykjavík – Vestmannaeyjar – Reykjavík) for which the PSO is being tendered. The period of validity of the contract, including the possibility of extension, as this will determine the potential return on investment. The deadline for submitting tenders, as failure to meet this deadline will disqualify the bidder.
EFTA Court’s judgment regarding Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008
The judgment clarifies that Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 provides a complete and exhaustive list of conditions that must be met for granting an operating license to an air carrier. This means that national licensing authorities cannot add any additional conditions beyond those already specified in Article 4 of the Regulation.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision regarding Directive 2010/13/EU
The decision confirms the compatibility of Norway’s measures with EEA law, particularly concerning the broadcasting of major events. This ensures that Norway can implement its national regulations to protect public access to important cultural and sporting events without violating its obligations under the EEA Agreement.
Notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding the applicable interest rates for state aid recovery
The base rates provided for each EFTA State: Iceland (7.84), Liechtenstein (0.67), and Norway (4.71). These rates serve as the foundation for calculating the recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates used in state aid cases within these countries.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/305 of 29 October 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the operational conditions, the representativeness obligation and the reporting requirements related to the active account requirement
COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2026/305 aims to specify the operational conditions, representativeness obligation, and reporting requirements related to the active account requirement for certain counterparties, supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR). This regulation ensures that counterparties required to hold an active account for clearing derivatives maintain functional accounts, clear a representative sample of their trades through these accounts, and report necessary information to their competent authorities. The goal is to promote financial stability by ensuring that counterparties actively use and maintain access to EU-authorized central counterparties (CCPs).
The regulation is structured into three chapters and two annexes:
* **Chapter I (Operational Conditions):** Details the requirements for contractual arrangements, policies, procedures, and IT connectivity to ensure active accounts are functional. It also specifies requirements for operational capacity to handle large increases in clearing activity and mandates annual stress-testing of these conditions.
* **Chapter II (Representativeness Obligation):** Sets out how counterparties must ensure that trades cleared in their active accounts are representative of their overall portfolio of interest rate derivatives denominated in euro or Polish zloty, and short-term interest rate derivatives denominated in euro. It defines relevant subcategories, reference periods, and conditions for demonstrating representativeness.
* **Chapter III (Reporting Requirements):** Specifies the information counterparties must report to their competent authorities every six months, including aggregate thresholds, compliance with operational conditions, and details on the representativeness obligation. It also sets out the reporting arrangements and deadlines.
* **Annex I:** Contains tables detailing classes of derivatives and relevant subcategories for the representativeness obligation, broken down by currency (EUR, PLN), type of derivative (Fixed-to-float, OIS, FRA, STIR), and referencing indices (Euribor, €STR).
* **Annex II:** Provides templates for reporting counterparty information, activities, and risk exposures to competent authorities.
* **Annex III:** Provides templates for reporting the number of trades per sub-category per class of derivative contracts and per applicable reference period to demonstrate compliance with the representativeness obligation.
Key provisions include:
* **Operational Requirements:** Counterparties must demonstrate they have legal and technical arrangements for accessing and using an active account with an authorized CCP. They must also have internal systems and resources to handle large volumes of derivative contracts and stress-test their operational capacity annually.
* **Representativeness Obligation:** Counterparties must clear a minimum number of trades in specified subcategories at an authorized CCP, ensuring these trades are representative of their activity at clearing services of substantial systemic importance. The regulation specifies how to determine the most relevant subcategories based on clearing activity and sets reference periods for assessing compliance.
* **Reporting Requirements:** Counterparties must report detailed information to their competent authorities every six months, including data on their activities, risk exposures, compliance with operational conditions, and adherence to the representativeness obligation. Standardized templates are provided for these reports.
This regulation introduces specific, quantitative criteria for determining whether a counterparty is meeting its obligation to actively use an account with an EU-authorized CCP. The focus on operational readiness, representativeness, and regular reporting aims to enhance transparency and ensure that counterparties are genuinely engaged in supporting EU CCPs.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1 of 1 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Member States’ allocations for direct payments and the annual breakdown by Member State of the Union support for rural development
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1 amends Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, adjusting the financial allocations for Member States under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These adjustments concern both direct payments to farmers and support for rural development projects. The changes reflect decisions made by Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Slovakia in their CAP Strategic Plans regarding the transfer of funds between direct payments and rural development allocations.
The regulation modifies Annexes V, IX, and XI of the original Regulation (EU) 2021/2115. These annexes detail the specific allocations for direct payments and rural development support for each Member State. The amendment involves replacing the rows corresponding to Czechia, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Slovakia in Annexes V and IX, updating their direct payment allocations for the years 2023-2027. Similarly, in Annex XI, the rows for Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Slovakia, as well as the “Total EU-27” and “Total” rows, are replaced to reflect the updated annual breakdown of Union support for rural development for the years 2023-2027.
The most important aspect of this regulation is the updated financial figures for direct payments and rural development support for the listed Member States. These changes will directly impact the funds available for farmers and rural development projects in these countries. The regulation is designed to ensure that the financial allocations align with the strategic decisions made by the Member States in their CAP Strategic Plans, allowing for a more tailored and effective implementation of the CAP.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/276 of 5 February 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels, originating in the People’s Republic of China
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/276 imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels originating in the People’s Republic of China. This regulation also definitively collects the provisional duty that was previously imposed. The investigation was initiated following a complaint by the Association Européenne des Transformateurs de Maïs Doux (AETMD) on behalf of the Union industry. The regulation concludes that the Union industry has suffered material injury due to dumped imports from China and establishes specific anti-dumping duty rates for various companies.
The regulation is structured into several sections, including the procedure, product definition, dumping determination, injury assessment, causation analysis, level of measures, Union interest, and definitive anti-dumping measures. It confirms findings from the provisional regulation, addresses comments from interested parties, and revises certain calculations based on new information. Key provisions include the establishment of definitive anti-dumping duty rates for specific Chinese companies, ranging from 31.0% to 54.3%, and a duty rate of 54.3% for all other imports from China.
The most important provisions for practical use include Article 1, which specifies the definitive anti-dumping duty rates and conditions for their application, including the requirement for a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration. Article 2 mandates the definitive collection of provisional duties. Article 3 provides a mechanism for new exporting producers to request the application of lower duty rates if they meet certain conditions. These provisions are critical for importers, exporters, and customs authorities to ensure compliance with the regulation and to determine the applicable duty rates accurately.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/274 of 5 February 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/274 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981, which imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China. The amendment follows both an expiry review and a partial interim review of the existing anti-dumping measures. The key change introduced by this regulation is the replacement of individual anti-dumping duties for specific Chinese exporters with a single, country-wide duty rate.
The regulation’s structure includes sections addressing the procedure, product definition, dumping determination, and anti-dumping measures. It details the investigations conducted, including sampling methodologies, and explains the rationale for determining the normal value based on costs in a representative country (Türkiye) due to significant distortions in the Chinese economy. The regulation also justifies the move to a country-wide duty based on the impracticability of individual duty rates and the influence of the Chinese government on the sector.
The most important provision of this act is the imposition of a **definitive anti-dumping duty of 79.0%** applicable to all imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating from the People’s Republic of China. This replaces the previous system of varied duties for individual exporters and will significantly impact importers and consumers of these products in the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/277 of 5 February 2026 granting a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family Hydrogen Peroxide Group in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/277 grants a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family named ‘Hydrogen Peroxide Group’. The authorisation, held by ARKEMA FRANCE, covers product-types 2, 3, and 4, which include disinfectants, algaecides, and veterinary hygiene products. The active substance in these products is hydrogen peroxide. The regulation specifies the conditions for making these products available on the market and their use, based on the summary of biocidal product characteristics (SPC) detailed in the Annex.
The structure of the act consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 grants the Union authorisation and specifies its validity period from February 26, 2026, to January 31, 2036. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex contains the summary of product characteristics (SPC) for the ‘Hydrogen Peroxide Group’, which is divided into three parts: First Information Level (administrative information), Second Information Level (meta SPCs detailing composition, hazards, precautionary statements, and authorized uses), and Third Information Level (individual products within each meta SPC). The SPC outlines the product types, authorisation holder, manufacturers, composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, application methods, risk mitigation measures, and instructions for safe disposal. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.
The main provisions of this act that may be the most important for its use are the detailed specifications within the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) in the Annex. These include the authorized uses for each product type (PT02, PT03, PT04), the specific application methods, the required personal protective equipment (PPE) for users, and the risk mitigation measures (RMMs) to ensure safe handling and application. The SPC also provides critical information on first aid, firefighting, and accidental release measures, as well as instructions for the safe disposal of the product and its packaging.
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 counter 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 United States to ease trade tensions. The regulation ensures the continued suspension of these rebalancing measures in light of ongoing developments in trade relations with the United States.
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 entry into force and the period of application of the regulation, which is from February 7, 2026, to August 6, 2026. This regulation follows Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1727, which initially suspended the same measures for six months. This new regulation extends that suspension.
The most important provision is Article 1, which effectively puts on hold the additional customs duties and export restrictions that were previously in place. This means that businesses involved in trade between the EU and the United States for the specified products will not be subject to these rebalancing measures during the period of suspension. The Commission retains the right to review the suspension based on further developments in trade relations with the United States and may take further actions as necessary.
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, designed to give you the key points in a clear and concise way.
**1. What’s this all about?**
This regulation introduces provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of 1,4-Butanediol (BDO) originating from China, Saudi Arabia, and the USA. The European Commission has determined there’s evidence of dumping (selling the product at unfairly low prices) that is causing material injury to the EU industry. These duties are a temporary measure to protect EU producers while the investigation continues.
**2. How is the regulation structured and what are the key parts?**
The regulation is divided into several sections, covering the procedure, product definition, dumping analysis, injury assessment, causation, the level of duties, Union interest, and final provisions.
* **Procedure:** Details the initiation of the investigation, parties involved, and how the Commission gathered information.
* **Product Definition:** Defines the scope of the investigation, including what constitutes BDO and the “like product” produced by the EU industry. It also addresses claims to exclude “bio BDO” from the scope.
* **Dumping:** This section is different for each country. It outlines how the Commission determined the normal value (price in the exporting country) and export price, and then calculated the dumping margin (the difference between the two). For China, due to “significant distortions” in their economy, the normal value was constructed using costs from a “representative country” (Brazil).
* **Injury:** Assesses the harm to the EU industry based on various economic indicators like production, sales, prices, and profitability.
* **Causation:** Examines whether the dumped imports are causing the injury, or if other factors are to blame.
* **Level of Measures:** Determines the level of duties needed to remove the injury, using the “lesser duty rule” (duties are set at the lower of the dumping margin or the injury margin).
* **Union Interest:** Considers whether imposing duties is in the overall interest of the EU, taking into account the impact on producers, users, and consumers.
* **Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures:** Sets out the specific duty rates for each company and country.
* **Final Provisions:** Outlines how interested parties can submit comments and request hearings.
**3. What are the most important parts to pay attention to?**
* **The specific anti-dumping duty rates** for each country and company listed in Article 1(2) and (3). These are the actual tariffs that will be applied.
* **The product definition** in Article 1(1) and section 2. This determines which products are subject to the duties.
* **The constructed normal value for China** in Section 3.1.2. This is important because it uses a different methodology due to the Commission’s findings of “significant distortions” in the Chinese economy.
* **The lesser duty rule** in Section 6. This means that the duties imposed may be lower than the full dumping margin if a lower duty is enough to remove the injury to the EU industry.
* **The conditions for applying individual duty rates** in Article 1(3). Importers must present a specific commercial invoice to get the lower, company-specific duty rates.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2026.JG v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of the actions of the Russian Federation destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Article 3i(1) and (3ad) – Annex XXI – Prohibition on importing goods generating significant revenues for the Russian Federation into the European Union – Importation of a vehicle.Case C-619/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU regulations imposing restrictive measures against Russia due to its actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. The case specifically addresses the prohibition on importing goods that generate significant revenue for Russia into the EU, focusing on the importation of a vehicle. The CJEU clarifies the scope and application of these restrictive measures.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment interprets Article 3i(1) and (3ad) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, as amended by Regulations 2022/576, 2022/1904, and 2023/2878. The core issue is whether the prohibition on importing goods listed in Annex XXI of Regulation 833/2014 (specifically motor vehicles under CN code 8703) applies only if it is proven that the specific goods generate significant revenue for Russia. Additionally, the judgment clarifies whether a vehicle already in the EU on December 19, 2023, can be registered in a Member State, even if its initial import was in violation of the import ban.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Article 3i(1):** Prohibits the purchase, import, or transfer of goods that generate significant revenue for Russia, as listed in Annex XXI, if they originate in or are exported from Russia.
* **Annex XXI:** Lists goods subject to the import ban, including motor vehicles (CN code 8703).
* **Article 3i(3ad):** Allows the registration in a Member State of vehicles already in the EU territory on December 19, 2023.
**Key Interpretations:**
1. **No Need for Individual Revenue Verification:** The CJEU clarifies that the import ban applies to *all* goods listed in Annex XXI, without needing to prove that each specific import generates significant revenue for Russia. The listing in Annex XXI is sufficient to trigger the prohibition.
2. **Registration Exception Does Not Legalize Prior Illegal Imports:** Article 3i(3ad) allowing registration of vehicles present in the EU on December 19, 2023, does *not* apply to vehicles that were illegally imported in violation of the import ban under Article 3i(1). This means that simply being present in the EU on that date does not legitimize an otherwise illegal import.
**** This judgment has implications for individuals attempting to import vehicles or other goods from Russia into the EU, as it confirms the broad scope of the import ban and clarifies that exceptions for vehicles already in the EU do not apply to those that were initially imported illegally.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2026.Urban Vision SpA v Comune di Milano and Digital Vox Srl, anciennement A&C Network Srl.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2014/23/EU – Procedure for the award of concession contracts – Project financing at the initiative of a private operator – Assessment and approval of a financing proposal – Call for tenders launched on the basis of that proposal – Pre-emption right of the economic operator that is the promoter, subject to ensuring the conditions of the best offer – Modification made after the submission of the initial offer – Article 3 – Principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency – Breach.Case C-810/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts, specifically concerning a pre-emption right granted to the promoter of a project financing procedure. The case originates from Italy and involves a dispute over the award of a contract for automated public toilets in Milan. The CJEU clarifies that national regulations granting such a pre-emption right are incompatible with EU law, as they violate the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and effective competition.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, the legal background including relevant EU directives and Italian law, the facts of the main proceedings, and the question referred to the CJEU. The Court then proceeds with its analysis, addressing the applicability of various EU directives and treaty articles, and ultimately providing an answer to the referring court’s question. The judgment concludes with a ruling and a decision on costs. The core of the judgment revolves around the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2014/23/EU, in conjunction with Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and other provisions of Directive 2014/23/EU. The Court finds that granting a pre-emption right to the promoter of a project financing procedure, allowing them to match the best offer and be awarded the contract, is incompatible with these provisions.
The most important provision of the act is the clarification that national rules granting a pre-emption right to project promoters in concession contracts are against the EU law. This is because it violates the principle of equal treatment and effective competition. The Court emphasizes that while contracting authorities have some flexibility in organizing concession award procedures, they must always comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment. This judgment confirms that tenderers must be on an equal footing both when they formulate their tenders and when those tenders are being assessed by the contracting authority.
Arrêt de la Cour (neuvième chambre) du 5 février 2026.#State Development Corporation “VEB.RF” contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Pourvoi – Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises au regard de la situation en Ukraine – Gel des fonds – Interdiction de fourniture de services spécialisés de messagerie financière à certains établissements de crédit russes ainsi qu’à leurs filiales russes – Décision 2014/145/PESC – Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous b) et d), et annexe – Règlement (UE) no 269/2014 – Article 3, paragraphe 1, sous b) et d), et annexe I – Décision 2014/512/PESC – Article 1er sexies et annexe VIII – Règlement (UE) no 833/2014 – Article 5 nonies et annexe XIV – Listes des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’appliquent les mesures restrictives – Inscription et maintien du nom de la requérante sur ces listes – Obligation de motivation – Droit de propriété – Proportionnalité – Égalité de traitement – Droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective – Détournement de pouvoir.#Affaire C-572/24 P.
This Court decision concerns the appeal of State Development Corporation “VEB.RF” against the judgment of the General Court, which rejected its application for annulment of several Council decisions and implementing regulations regarding restrictive measures against actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. These measures include the freezing of funds and the prohibition of providing specialized financial messaging services to certain Russian credit institutions. The Court examines whether the General Court erred in its assessment of the Council’s obligation to state reasons, the existence of errors of assessment, the violation of the right to property, the principle of equal treatment, and the right to effective judicial protection.
The structure of the act is as follows:
1. **Introduction**: Sets out the context of the appeal by State Development Corporation “VEB.RF” against the General Court’s judgment.
2. **Legal Framework and Background**: Summarizes the relevant Council Decisions (2014/145/PESC, 2014/512/PESC) and Regulations (EU) No 269/2014, (EU) No 833/2014) concerning restrictive measures against actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity, including amendments. It details the initial reasons for including VEB.RF in the lists of entities subject to these measures.
3. **Proceedings Before the General Court and the Contested Judgment**: Describes the initial proceedings where VEB.RF sought annulment of the restrictive measures, and the General Court rejected VEB.RF’s claims.
4. **Claims of the Parties in the Appeal**: Summarizes the arguments of VEB.RF, the Council, and the Commission. VEB.RF claims errors in the General Court’s assessment regarding the duty to state reasons, errors of assessment, violation of property rights, violation of equal treatment, and failure to recognize violations of the right to effective judicial protection.
5. **The Appeal**:
* **Admissibility**: The Court addresses the Commission’s claim that the appeal is inadmissible because it merely repeats arguments from the first instance. The Court clarifies that while an appeal must specifically identify errors of law, it can revisit legal points already examined.
* **First Plea**: Addresses whether the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons for the restrictive measures. The Court examines whether the reasons provided were sufficient for VEB.RF to understand why it was targeted, both under the initial acts and subsequent amendments.
* **Second Plea**: Examines whether the General Court correctly assessed that the Council did not commit errors of assessment. The Court reviews whether VEB.RF could be considered part of the Russian state and whether the Council adequately demonstrated that VEB.RF provided material or financial support to Russian decision-makers.
* **Third Plea**: Considers whether the General Court erred in not finding a violation of VEB.RF’s right to property. The Court assesses whether the restrictions were justified under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and whether they were proportionate.
* **Fourth Plea**: Assesses whether the General Court erred in concluding that VEB.RF had not demonstrated a violation of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
* **Fifth Plea**: Addresses whether the General Court erred in concluding that VEB.RF had not demonstrated a violation of its right to effective judicial protection or the existence of a misuse of power.
6. **Decision on Costs**: Determines that VEB.RF must bear its own costs as well as those of the Council, while the Commission must bear its own costs.
The main provisions of the act are the court’s rulings on the pleas raised by VEB.RF:
* The Court rejected the argument that the Council did not adequately state the reasons for including VEB.RF in the restrictive measures.
* The Court found no error in the General Court’s assessment that VEB.RF could be considered as providing support to actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity.
* The Court acknowledged an error in the General Court’s approach to assessing the violation of property rights but concluded that the restrictive measures were still justified under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
* The Court dismissed the pleas regarding violations of equal treatment, the right to effective judicial protection, and misuse of power as inadmissible or unfounded.
The most important provisions for its use are the court’s interpretations and applications of the legal standards for imposing restrictive measures, particularly regarding the duty to state reasons, the assessment of errors, and the justification for restricting fundamental rights such as the right to property.
**** This act is related to Ukraine and has implications to Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2026.NP v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Article 33 – Grounds of inadmissibility – Article 38 – Concept of ‘safe third country’ – Conditions for implementation – Connection between the applicant and the third country concerned – Criteria – Assessment methods – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.Case C-718/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of the Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, specifically regarding the concept of “safe third country.” The case originated from Bulgaria and involves a Syrian national, NP, whose application for international protection was rejected based on the premise that Turkey is a safe third country for him.
The judgment clarifies several aspects of how Member States can apply the “safe third country” concept when processing applications for international protection. It addresses when an application can be deemed inadmissible based on the “safe third country” principle, the criteria for establishing a connection between an applicant and a third country, and the extent of judicial review required in such cases. The CJEU provides guidance on the interpretation of key articles within Directive 2013/32/EU, ensuring a consistent application of asylum procedures across the European Union.
The judgment is structured around five questions raised by the Bulgarian court.
1. It confirms that the “safe third country” ground for inadmissibility does not necessarily have to be applied during the examination of the merits of an application for international protection. An application can be rejected as inadmissible even if the applicant meets the criteria for international protection, but it can be rejected as unfounded only after substantive examination.
2. The judgment states that Member States must define criteria in their national law for determining a connection between the applicant and the third country, ensuring it is reasonable for the applicant to go there.
3. The judgment clarifies that Member States can use publicly available information and executive decisions to designate “safe third countries,” but they must also have a methodology for assessing the safety of the country for each applicant individually and allow the applicant to challenge the connection to that country.
4. The judgment emphasizes the right to an effective remedy, requiring national courts to verify the connection between the applicant and the third country, even if national law does not explicitly grant them such power.
The most important provisions of the act are related to the interpretation of Article 38(2) of Directive 2013/32. It is clarified that Member States must define criteria in their national law for determining a connection between the applicant for international protection and the third country concerned. Also, the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection must verify whether there is a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, even if its national law does not grant it such a power.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2026.Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v European Parliament.Appeal – Institutional law – Members of the European Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Decision to waive parliamentary immunity of Members of the Parliament – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle of good administration – Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs – Requirement that the rapporteur be impartial.Case C-572/23 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) regarding an appeal by Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Antoni Comín i Oliveres, and Clara Ponsatí i Obiols against the European Parliament’s decision to waive their parliamentary immunity. The Court of Justice set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the European Parliament’s decisions to waive the appellants’ immunity. The core issue revolved around the impartiality of the rapporteur within the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI Committee) who handled the waiver requests.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** Details the initial General Court judgment, the legal context including Protocol No. 7 on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, and Notice No. 11/2019 on principles for immunity cases.
2. **Facts:** Outlines the events leading to the waiver requests, including the appellants’ involvement in the Catalan referendum, the criminal proceedings against them in Spain, and their election as Members of the European Parliament.
3. **General Court Proceedings:** Summarizes the proceedings before the General Court, including the pleas raised by the appellants.
4. **Appeal:** Details the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants, focusing on alleged errors of law by the General Court.
5. **Court of Justice Analysis:** The Court of Justice examines the grounds of appeal, particularly focusing on the impartiality of the rapporteur within the JURI Committee. It emphasizes the importance of impartiality as a component of good administration under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court finds that the General Court erred in its assessment of the rapporteur’s impartiality, considering the rapporteur’s political affiliations and previous actions.
6. **Final Judgment:** The Court sets aside the General Court’s judgment, annuls the Parliament’s decisions to waive immunity, and rules on the allocation of costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* The judgment underscores the importance of impartiality in waiver of immunity cases, emphasizing that the Parliament must comply with legal rules and principles, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
* It clarifies that the impartiality requirement includes both subjective and objective elements, and that the Parliament must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to possible bias.
* The Court finds that the General Court erred in holding that the rapporteur’s affiliation with a political group that included members of a party instigating criminal proceedings against the appellants did not affect the assessment of impartiality.
* The judgment highlights that the Parliament’s own rules (Notice No. 11/2019) recognize the potential for political affiliations to affect impartiality, and that these rules must be applied consistently.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are:
* **Impartiality Standard:** The judgment sets a high standard for impartiality in parliamentary immunity waiver cases, requiring the Parliament to ensure that rapporteurs are free from any potential bias, including that arising from political affiliations.
* **Application of Charter:** It reinforces the applicability of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the Parliament’s procedures for waiving immunity.
* **Consequences of Bias:** It clarifies that a failure to ensure impartiality in the waiver process can lead to the annulment of the Parliament’s decisions.
* **Impact on National Legal Proceedings:** This judgement may have implications on the pending national legal proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 February 2026.Giorgio Fidenato, en son nom propre et en tant que propriétaire de l’exploitation agricole « In Trois » v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste.References for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – Measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in the environment – Directive 2001/18/EC – Article 26c(1) and (3) – Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 – Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/321 – Prohibition of the cultivation of MON 810 GMO maize in Italy – Validity – Free movement of goods – Articles 34 and 114 TFEU – Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination – Freedom to conduct a business – Articles 16 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.Case C-364/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically MON 810 GMO maize, in Italy. The cases were brought before the CJEU as requests for preliminary rulings from Italian courts. The central issue revolves around the validity and interpretation of certain articles of Directive 2001/18/EC (as amended by Directive 2015/412) and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/321, which effectively prohibited the cultivation of MON 810 GMO maize in Italy. The farmer, Giorgio Fidenato, challenged these provisions, arguing they infringe upon EU law principles related to the free movement of goods, freedom to conduct a business, and non-discrimination.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction**: It outlines the requests for preliminary rulings and the core legal questions.
2. **Legal Context**: It details the relevant EU and Italian laws, including Directive 2001/18/EC, Directive 2015/412, Implementing Decision 2016/321, Regulation No 1829/2003, and Italian Legislative Decree No 224/2003.
3. **The Disputes in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling**: It describes the factual background of the cases, including Mr. Fidenato’s cultivation of MON 810 GMO maize and the resulting penalties imposed by Italian authorities. It also presents the specific questions posed by the Italian courts to the CJEU.
4. **Consideration of the Questions Referred**: This section contains the Court’s analysis and answers to the questions, addressing admissibility and substance.
5. **Costs**: A standard statement regarding the allocation of costs in the proceedings.
The most important provisions of the act are:
* **Validity of Articles 26b and 26c of Directive 2001/18**: The Court found that Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 is valid and consistent with primary EU law, including the free movement of goods, non-discrimination, and freedom to conduct a business. The Court reasoned that the provisions allow Member States flexibility in deciding whether to cultivate GMOs without affecting the risk assessment conducted at the EU level.
* **Validity of Implementing Decision 2016/321**: The Court upheld the validity of Implementing Decision 2016/321, which prohibited the cultivation of MON 810 GMO maize in Italy, as it was based on valid provisions of Directive 2001/18.
* **Interpretation of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18**: The Court clarified that decisions adopted under Article 26c(1) and (3) do not require specific justification based on the grounds listed in Article 26b(3) of Directive 2001/18.
* **National Penalties for Non-Compliance**: The Court confirmed that Implementing Decision 2016/321 does not preclude national legislation imposing penalties for non-compliance with the prohibition of cultivating MON 810 GMO maize.
Compared to previous versions or related legislation, this judgment clarifies the scope and validity of the provisions introduced by Directive 2015/412, which aimed to give Member States more flexibility in restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs in their territory. It confirms that Member States can prohibit the cultivation of GMOs based on the transitional measures in Article 26c(1) and (3) without needing to provide specific justifications, as long as the authorisation holder tacitly consents.
The judgment’s main significance lies in its confirmation of the legality of national bans on GMO cultivation under specific conditions, balancing the principles of free movement of goods and the internal market with Member States’ rights to make decisions related to land use, local agricultural structures, and environmental protection.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2026.European Union Intellectual Property Office v Nowhere Co. Ltd.Appeal – Application for the EU figurative mark APE TEES – Earlier non-registered figurative trade marks representing a monkey, protected in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(4) – Relative ground for refusal – Opposition – Appeal before the Board of Appeal – Dismissal – Action before the General Court – Article 50(1) and (3) TEU – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – Articles 126 and 127 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community – Transition period – Expiry – Circumstances prior to the adoption of the decision at issue – Relevant moment for assessing the existence of an earlier mark – Principle of territoriality – Territorial scope of the EU trade mark – Existence of a conflict.Case C-337/22 P.
This is the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) regarding an appeal by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) against a General Court judgment. The case concerns an application for an EU figurative mark “APE TEES” and an opposition based on earlier non-registered figurative trade marks representing a monkey, protected in the United Kingdom.
The judgment addresses whether the existence of an earlier right, used as the basis for opposing the registration of an EU trade mark, must be assessed only at the time of filing the EU trade mark application or also at the time EUIPO makes its decision, especially considering the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The Court of Justice ultimately set aside the General Court’s judgment, ruling that the earlier right must be valid not only at the time of filing the EU trade mark application but also when EUIPO makes its decision.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Legal Context:** It outlines the relevant articles from the Withdrawal Agreement, Regulation No 40/94, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Regulation 2017/1001, Regulation No 2868/95, and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
2. **Background to the Dispute:** It details the timeline of events, including the application for the EU trade mark, the opposition filed by Nowhere Co. Ltd based on earlier UK trade marks, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
3. **The Action before the General Court and the Judgment under Appeal:** It summarizes the General Court’s decision to annul EUIPO’s decision, finding that the relevant date for assessing the existence of an earlier right is the date of filing the EU trade mark application.
4. **Procedure before the Court of Justice and Forms of Order Sought by the Parties to the Appeal:** It outlines the arguments made by EUIPO, Nowhere Co. Ltd, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the International Trademark Association (INTA).
5. **The Appeal:** The Court of Justice analyzes EUIPO’s single ground of appeal, which alleges that the General Court’s judgment was flawed due to an inadequate statement of reasons and errors of law.
The most important provisions of the judgment are:
* The Court of Justice found that the General Court erred in ruling that the relevant date for assessing the existence of an earlier right is solely the date of filing the EU trade mark application.
* The Court clarified that the earlier right must be valid not only at the time of filing the EU trade mark application but also when EUIPO makes its decision on the opposition.
* The Court emphasized that after the end of the transition period following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, UK law no longer constitutes the “law of a Member State” for the purposes of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
* The Court upheld EUIPO’s appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment, and dismissed the action brought by Nowhere Co. Ltd.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2026.European Commission v Covington & Burling and Bart Van Vooren.Appeal – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 4(3), second subparagraph – Protection of the decision-making process – Refusal to disclose documents relating to the votes of the Member States concerning the amendment of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 – Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 – Comitology – Decision 1999/468/EC – Regulatory procedure with scrutiny – Cross-appeal.Case C-540/23 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding access to documents related to the votes of Member States in a comitology procedure. The European Commission appealed a General Court judgment that partially annulled the Commission’s decision to refuse access to these documents. The case revolves around the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents, specifically Article 4(3) concerning the protection of the decision-making process.
The structure of the judgment involves the CJEU examining both an appeal by the Commission and a cross-appeal by the original applicants (Covington & Burling LLP and Mr. Bart Van Vooren). The CJEU first addresses the cross-appeal, which contests the General Court’s finding that Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 was applicable in this case. The CJEU dismisses the cross-appeal, agreeing with the General Court that the votes of Member States in the comitology procedure can be considered “opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations.” The CJEU then examines the Commission’s appeal, which argues that the General Court erred in its assessment of whether disclosing the documents would undermine the decision-making process. The CJEU dismisses the Commission’s appeal, finding that the General Court was correct in holding that the legal framework of comitology does not, in itself, preclude access to these documents.
The most important provisions for the use of this judgment relate to the interpretation of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and the balance between transparency and the protection of the decision-making process. The CJEU clarifies that Member States’ votes in comitology procedures can fall under the exception of “opinions for internal use,” but this does not automatically justify a refusal to grant access. The Commission must still demonstrate that disclosure would “seriously undermine” the decision-making process. The judgment also emphasizes that the legal framework of comitology, including rules on confidentiality, does not override the general principle of transparency and the right of public access to documents.
EFTA Surveillance Authority communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation 1008/2008 of the European parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community – Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
This is a notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a public tender for the operation of scheduled air services on the route Reykjavík – Vestmannaeyjar – Reykjavík in Iceland. The tender is issued in accordance with Article 17(5) of Regulation 1008/2008, which sets out common rules for the operation of air services in the Community. The notice provides details about the routes, the period of validity of the contract, the deadline for submitting tenders, and contact information for obtaining the tender documents.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The notice is structured as a standard invitation to tender for public service obligations (PSO) in air transport. The key provisions include:
* **Routes:** Specifies the air route subject to the public service obligation: Reykjavík – Vestmannaeyjar – Reykjavík.
* **Period of Validity:** Defines the duration of the air service operation (1st of December – 28th of February each year, with a possible extension up to 3 months) and the contract validity (1st of December 2026 to 31st of May 2029, with a possible two-year extension).
* **Deadline for Submission:** Sets the deadline for submitting tenders as two months from the publication date of the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.
* **Contact Information:** Provides the address, email, and telephone number of Vegagerðin (The Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration) where tender documents and related information can be obtained.
* **Additional Identifiers:** Includes references to the tender in Icelandic and English, as well as an ELI (European Legislation Identifier) for online access.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provisions for potential bidders are:
* The specific route (Reykjavík – Vestmannaeyjar – Reykjavík) for which the PSO is being tendered.
* The period of validity of the contract, including the possibility of extension, as this will determine the potential return on investment.
* The deadline for submitting tenders, as failure to meet this deadline will disqualify the bidder.
* The contact information for Vegagerðin, as this is the primary source for obtaining the tender documents and any additional information needed to prepare a competitive bid.
Judgment of the Court of 16 October 2025 in Case E-1/25 – Valair AG v Amt für Volkswirtschaft (Amt für Hochbau und Raumplanung (AHR)) (Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 – The conditions for the issue of an operating licence – Articles 3 and 4 – Harmonisation)
This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, which concerns common rules for the operation of air services in the Community. The case specifically addresses the conditions for issuing an operating license to an air transport company. The Liechtenstein Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters requested the Court to clarify Article 4 of the Regulation.
The judgment consists of a single operative part. It clarifies that Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 provides a complete and exhaustive list of conditions that must be met for granting an operating license to an air carrier. This means that national licensing authorities cannot add any additional conditions beyond those already specified in Article 4 of the Regulation.
The most important provision of this judgment is the confirmation that Article 4 of Regulation 1008/2008 provides an exhaustive list of conditions for granting an operating license. This limits the power of national authorities to impose additional requirements on air carriers seeking to obtain or maintain their operating licenses, ensuring a harmonized application of the Regulation across the European Economic Area (EEA).
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 Norway’s proposed 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 around several recitals that outline the reasoning behind the Authority’s conclusion, followed by three articles that formalize the decision and outline the next steps. The recitals detail the notification process, the criteria used to assess the importance of events, and considerations regarding proportionality and competition. The articles state that the Norwegian measures are compatible with EEA law, require Norway to communicate the final adopted measures to the Authority, and specify that the decision is addressed to Norway.
The most important provisions of this act are those confirming the compatibility of Norway’s measures with EEA law, particularly concerning the broadcasting of major events. This ensures that Norway can implement its national regulations to protect public access to important cultural and sporting events without violating its obligations under the EEA Agreement. The decision also highlights the criteria used to determine events of major importance, such as their general resonance, cultural significance, involvement of the national team, and traditional free-to-air broadcasting, providing a framework for future assessments.
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as of 1 November 2025 (Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004)
This notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) announces the applicable interest rates for state aid recovery and the reference/discount rates for EFTA States, effective from November 1, 2025. These rates are crucial for calculating the amount of interest to be recovered when state aid is found to be unlawful and for determining the present value of future payments in state aid assessments.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The notice is structured as a simple table presenting the base rates for Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. These base rates are calculated according to the methodology outlined in ESA’s State Aid Guidelines, specifically the chapter on setting reference and discount rates, as amended by ESA’s Decision No. 788/08/COL of December 17, 2008. The notice explicitly states that to arrive at the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins must be added to these base rates, in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines. The legal basis for the notice is Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL.
**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
The most important aspect of this notice is the specific base rates provided for each EFTA State: Iceland (7.84), Liechtenstein (0.67), and Norway (4.71). These rates serve as the foundation for calculating the recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates used in state aid cases within these countries. Stakeholders involved in state aid, such as national authorities, aid recipients, and legal professionals, need to use these rates, in conjunction with the relevant State Aid Guidelines, to ensure compliance with EFTA state aid rules.
