Review of EU Legislation
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1253
This regulation tweaks the rules for the EU Emissions Trading System, specifically how the Union Registry operates. It addresses several key areas: how to handle shipping companies and biomass installations that are no longer part of the EU ETS, reporting historical emissions, dealing with operators who don’t surrender enough allowances, and a mechanism to return allowances to operators if a court rules they shouldn’t have been included in the system. Several articles and annexes of the original regulation (EU) 2019/1122 are modified to reflect these changes.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1243
This regulation reallocates fishing quotas for certain preserved fish products from Cabo Verde. The change involves shifting unused tuna quotas to mackerel and frigate tuna, following a request from Cabo Verde to help their fish processing companies. The regulation modifies Annexes I and II of the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1288, specifying the revised quota amounts for each type of fish.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1277
This regulation updates the EU’s sanctions list against individuals and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. It adds “Abubakar Swalleh” to the list of individuals subject to asset freezes and other restrictive measures, based on a decision by the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee. The amendment modifies Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1234
This regulation expands the use of electronic instructions for medical devices. It now allows manufacturers to provide electronic instructions for a broader range of medical devices intended for professional users. However, if a device is intended for both professional users and laypersons, paper instructions must still be provided for the laypersons. The regulation also requires manufacturers to include a link to the electronic instructions in the Eudamed database.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1254
This regulation authorizes a specific type of riboflavin (Vitamin B2) produced from a particular strain of microorganism (*Eremothecium ashbyi*) as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive is classified as a nutritional additive. The regulation specifies the conditions of use, including the composition, characteristics, and analytical methods for determining the presence of riboflavin in feed.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1245
This regulation registers “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi,” a type of pistachio paste from Türkiye, as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. This protection means that only products produced in the specified region and according to the defined standards can be marketed under that name.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1249
This regulation registers ‘Kaffeost’, a cheese from Sweden, as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the EU. This legal protection means that only products produced in accordance with the specified product specification within the designated geographical area can be marketed as ‘Kaffeost’ in the European Union.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1215
This regulation modifies the rules concerning the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) for securities financing transactions (SFTs). It prevents a previously planned increase in stable funding factors for certain short-term financing transactions with financial customers, aiming to avoid potential disruptions to sovereign bond markets.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (ClientEarth v Council)
The General Court rejected a challenge by ClientEarth against the Council’s decision on fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks. ClientEarth argued that the Council’s decision violated environmental law, but the court dismissed all four pleas, reinforcing the Council’s discretion in balancing environmental and socioeconomic factors when setting fishing quotas.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Uniper Global Commodities SE v ACER)
The General Court dismissed an action by Uniper challenging a decision by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) regarding the methodology for pricing balancing energy. The court found that Uniper was not individually concerned by ACER’s decision and that Uniper’s subsidiary claim was time-barred. This judgement concerns the legality of temporary price limits on balancing energy.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM v Commission)
The General Court rejected a challenge against the Commission’s decision not to object to German tax treatment of public casino operators. The core of the judgment addresses whether the Commission should have initiated a formal investigation into the German tax treatment. The court clarified the concept of “selective advantage” in State aid law and the steps the Commission must take when classifying a tax measure as such.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and INAO v Nero Lifestyle Srl)
The General Court partially annulled a decision by the EUIPO Board of Appeal regarding the trade mark “NERO CHAMPAGNE”. The dispute involved an opposition based on the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Champagne”. The court clarified that the provision protecting PDOs against commercial use that exploits their reputation is not limited to products that do not comply with the PDO’s product specification.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Pavel Ezubov v Council)
The General Court annulled the Council’s decisions to maintain Pavel Ezubov on the EU’s sanctions lists related to actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. The court found that the Council had not provided sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Ezubov’s name on the sanctions lists, particularly regarding the claim that he was “benefitting” from his cousin, Oleg Deripaska.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Certinvest SRL v Regal Ventures Ltd)
The General Court decided that the figurative mark “Premium Quality REGAL Bakery” applied for by Certinvest SRL cannot be registered due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier EU word mark “REGAL” and the earlier EU figurative mark “Regal” held by Regal Ventures Ltd. The court undertook a detailed analysis of the likelihood of confusion, including the assessment of dominant elements, similarity of goods/services, conceptual similarity, and inherent distinctiveness.
Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre élargie) 25 juin 2025 (RWE Supply & Trading GmbH v ACER)
This General Court decision involves RWE’s challenge of ACER’s decision to modify the methodology for pricing balancing energy. The key issue was whether RWE had the right to bring the action. The court emphasized that only those directly and individually affected can challenge ACER’s decisions, dismissing RWE’s action.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Case T-495/24)
The General Court rejected a claim by a European Commission official for reimbursement of the increased value of his pension capital during the transfer of his pension rights to the EU pension scheme. The court clarified that the Commission is entitled to deduct the increase in value, but this deduction is limited to the portion of capital that will be converted into pensionable years.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Ryanair DAC v European Commission)
The General Court upheld the European Commission’s decision to approve German State aid to Condor Flugdienst GmbH to compensate for damages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that Ryanair failed to demonstrate that the Commission should have had doubts about the compatibility of the aid with the internal market.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision (Case 93520, Decision 020/25/COL)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has approved Norway’s amended employee share option tax scheme for start-up and growth companies. The scheme aims to improve the ability of these companies to attract and retain key employees through tax exemptions on employee share options.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1253 of 11 February 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122 supplementing Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the functioning of the Union Registry
Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1253:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122, which supplements Directive 2003/87/EC regarding the functioning of the Union Registry for the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The amendments address specific issues related to maritime transport, biomass emissions, reporting of historical emissions, compliance, aviation fuel support, data publication, transaction reversals, and restitution of allowances following court rulings. The goal is to improve the functioning and accuracy of the Union Registry and ensure compliance with the EU ETS.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation modifies several articles and annexes of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122. Key changes include:
* **Article 9:** Allows competent authorities to set the maritime operator holding account of a shipping company no longer included in the EU ETS to “excluded status” and introduces a similar provision for installations using biomass.
* **Article 15b:** Introduces provisions for national administrators to create a national competent authority account for reporting historical emissions in 2025 and verified emissions in 2026.
* **Article 26c:** Allows the national administrator to close a national competent authority account if the emissions reported under Article 15b(8) have been registered.
* **Article 32a:** Introduces a mechanism to block operator accounts if they fail to surrender sufficient allowances by October 1st of each year.
* **Article 33:** Specifies that negative compliance figures from the first and second phases of the EU ETS should not be considered in the compliance status calculation if they cannot be corrected.
* **Article 40:** Updates the transfer of aviation allowances to be auctioned.
* **Article 49:** Requires Member States to notify the Commission of changes to the national aviation allocation tables.
* **Article 58:** Extends the timeframe for submitting requests for transaction reversals.
* **Article 58a:** Introduces a mechanism for the restitution of allowances to operators following court rulings that exclude their activities from the scope of Directive 2003/87/EC.
* **Annexes:** The annexes modify various tables and data requirements within the Union Registry to reflect the changes introduced in the articles.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* **Excluded Status for Maritime and Biomass Operators (Article 9):** This provision is crucial for shipping companies and installations using biomass, as it allows their accounts to be temporarily excluded from the EU ETS when they fall outside its scope.
* **National Competent Authority Account (Article 15b):** This account is essential for national administrators to report historical and verified emissions data, which is necessary for calculating emission caps.
* **Blocking of Accounts (Article 32a):** Operators need to be aware of the new mechanism for blocking accounts due to a failure to surrender allowances, as this could impact their ability to trade.
* **Restitution of Allowances (Article 58a):** This article provides a mechanism for operators to receive allowances back if a court ruling finds that their activities are outside the scope of the EU ETS.
* **Reporting obligations:** National administrators are required to report aggregated emissions at the national level in the Union Registry via the national competent authority account by 30 June 2025 and by 30 June 2026.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1243 of 25 June 2025 amending Annexes I and II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1288 as regards the reallocation of unused quotas for prepared or preserved fillets of tuna and tuna loins (raw, cooked and frozen), prepared or preserved mackerel fillets and prepared or preserved frigate tuna or frigate mackerel fillets
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1243 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1288 regarding the reallocation of unused quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish products from Cabo Verde. The core of the amendment involves shifting unused quotas from tuna to mackerel and frigate tuna, aiming to support Cabo Verde’s fisheries sector without increasing the overall quota amounts. This adjustment responds to Cabo Verde’s request to address difficulties faced by its fish processing companies due to limited quotas. The regulation ensures the revised quotas are managed in accordance with existing rules governing tariff quotas.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of two articles and two annexes. Article 1 stipulates that Annexes I and II of the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1288 are replaced by the new Annexes I and II included in this amending regulation. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and the date of application, making it retroactive to January 1, 2025. Annex I details the revised quotas for prepared or preserved fillets and loins of tuna, while Annex II outlines the adjusted quotas for prepared or preserved fillets of mackerel and frigate tuna. The main change is the reallocation of 700 tonnes of unused tuna quotas to mackerel (300 tonnes) and frigate tuna (400 tonnes) for the year 2025.
The most important provisions for practical use are the revised quota amounts specified in Annexes I and II. These figures directly impact the quantities of fish products that can be imported from Cabo Verde under the preferential origin rules. Businesses involved in importing these products need to be aware of the new quota allocations for 2025 to ensure compliance with the regulation and to take full advantage of the tariff preferences available.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1277 of 24 June 2025 amending for the 348th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1277 amends Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which imposes restrictive measures against individuals and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. The amendment updates the list of persons, groups, and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources, based on decisions made by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council. The regulation ensures the EU implements UN sanctions effectively.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation enters into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex adds one new entry to the list of designated individuals under the heading ‘Natural persons’.
The most important provision of this act is the addition of “Abubakar Swalleh” to the list of individuals subject to asset freezes and other restrictive measures. This means that all funds and economic resources belonging to or controlled by this individual within the EU are to be frozen, and no funds or economic resources are to be made available to him. This addition is based on the decision of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee and reflects the EU’s commitment to implementing international sanctions regimes against terrorism.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 of 25 June 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226 as regards the medical devices for which the instructions for use may be provided in electronic form
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1234 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226, focusing on the provision of instructions for use for medical devices in electronic form. The amendment broadens the scope of devices for which electronic instructions are permissible, reflecting a preference among healthcare professionals for digital formats. It aims to streamline the process, reduce redundancies, and align with the broader regulatory framework for medical devices.
The regulation modifies several articles of the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226. Key changes include: extending the application to all medical devices and accessories intended for professional users, including those under transitional provisions and devices without an intended medical purpose; clarifying that instructions for lay persons must still be provided in paper form when the device is also intended for professional users; requiring manufacturers to provide the internet address for electronic instructions to the UDI database in Eudamed once registration becomes mandatory; and removing or clarifying certain requirements to avoid overlaps and uncertainties.
The most important provisions for practical use are those that expand the scope of devices eligible for electronic instructions for use, the stipulation for paper instructions for lay persons, and the requirement to provide the URL for electronic instructions in the Eudamed database. These changes impact manufacturers of medical devices by allowing them to provide instructions electronically for a broader range of products, while also ensuring that instructions are accessible and meet regulatory requirements.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1254 of 25 June 2025 concerning the authorisation of riboflavin produced from Eremothecium ashbyi CCTCCM 2019833, in the form of a dried inactivated fermentation product, as a feed additive for all animal species
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1254 authorises the use of riboflavin (Vitamin B2) produced from *Eremothecium ashbyi* CCTCCM 2019833 as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive is classified as a nutritional additive within the functional group of vitamins, pro-vitamins, and chemically well-defined substances having similar effect. The regulation specifies the conditions of use, including the composition, characteristics, and analytical methods for determining the presence of riboflavin in the feed additive and premixtures.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the substance specified in the annex is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that annex. Article 2 states that the regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive, its composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, and other provisions, including the end of the authorisation period. There are no previous versions mentioned, so no changes can be described.
The most important provisions for users include the specifications for the additive’s composition (minimum 5% riboflavin, moisture ≤ 7%, solid form), the authorized analytical methods for determining riboflavin content, and the requirement for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks, including the use of personal protective equipment. The authorisation is valid until 16 July 2035.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1245 of 18 June 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi (PGI)’ in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1245 registers “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. The registration follows an application from Türkiye and complies with Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Since no opposition was received, the geographical indication is now officially protected within the EU.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasons for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the geographical indication in the Union register, referencing Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation implements the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which repealed Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and updates the legal framework for geographical indications.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the name “Antep Fıstık Ezmesi / Antepfıstığı Ezmesi / Gaziantep Fıstık Ezmesi” within the EU as a PGI. This means that only products that meet the specific criteria and are produced in the designated geographical area can be marketed under that name, protecting the interests of producers and consumers.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1249 of 18 June 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Kaffeost (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1249 registers ‘Kaffeost’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. This means ‘Kaffeost’, a product from Sweden, now has a specific protection across the EU. The registration is based on the absence of opposition following the publication of the application. The legal basis for this regulation is Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 on geographical indications.
The structure of the act is very simple. It consists of a preamble that explains the reasons for the regulation, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers ‘Kaffeost’ (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and confirms that the regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation implements the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which repealed and replaced Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
The most important provision is Article 1, which grants ‘Kaffeost’ the status of a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). This legal protection means that only products produced in accordance with the specified product specification within the designated geographical area can be marketed as ‘Kaffeost’ in the European Union. This protects the name and traditional production methods from misuse and imitation.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1215 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as regards requirements for securities financing transactions under the net stable funding ratio (Text with EEA relevance)
This Regulation (EU) 2025/1215 amends Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, specifically concerning the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) requirements for securities financing transactions (SFTs). The key aim is to maintain the current stable funding factors for certain short-term financing transactions with financial customers, preventing an increase that was previously scheduled. This adjustment seeks to avoid potential disruptions to the liquidity of sovereign bond markets and ensure a level playing field in the international SFT market.
The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 details the amendments to Article 510 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, focusing on paragraphs 6, 7, and 8. It replaces the introductory wording of paragraph 6(a) and points (d) and (e) of that paragraph, setting out new requirements for the EBA to monitor and report on stable funding related to SFTs. It also deletes paragraphs 7 and 8, which contained provisions for a deferred raise of certain funding factors. Article 2 establishes the entry into force and application date of the amending Regulation, ensuring it takes effect from 29 June 2025.
The most important provision is the deletion of Article 510(8) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which prevents the increase of stable funding factors for monies due from financing transactions with financial customers, where those transactions have a residual maturity of less than six months. This maintains the existing, less conservative calibration of these funding factors, which is intended to support market liquidity, particularly in sovereign debt markets. Additionally, the requirement for EBA to report every five years on the appropriateness of stable funding requirements ensures ongoing monitoring and potential future adjustments based on market conditions and international developments.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 June 2025.ClientEarth AISBL v Council of the European Union.Common fisheries policy – Conservation of resources – Total allowable catches – Regulation (EU) 2022/109 – Request for internal review of an administrative act under environmental law – Article 2(1)(f) and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Objective of achieving a maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate at the latest by 2020 for all stocks – Articles 2, 3, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 – Socioeconomic and employment objectives – Best available scientific advice – Landing obligation – Mixed fisheries – Choke species – Precautionary approach – Ecosystem-based approach – Regulation (EU) 2018/973 – Regulation (EU) 2019/472 – Target stocks – By-catches.Case T-577/22.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by ClientEarth against the Council of the European Union. The case concerns the legality of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/109, which fixed fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks in Union waters. ClientEarth sought the annulment of the Council’s decision rejecting its request for an internal review of the regulation, arguing that it violated environmental law.
The judgment is structured around four main pleas raised by ClientEarth. The first plea concerns errors in the scope and grounds for reviewing administrative acts under the Aarhus Regulation, particularly regarding provisional Total Allowable Catches (TACs). The second plea addresses errors of law related to the Council’s discretion in setting fishing opportunities and its competence under Article 43(3) TFEU. The third plea alleges manifest errors of assessment in implementing the precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management. Finally, the fourth plea claims a misuse of powers by the Council.
The court ultimately dismisses all four pleas and rejects ClientEarth’s action. It finds that the Council did not err in refusing to review provisional TACs, that it had the appropriate discretion in setting fishing opportunities considering both environmental and socioeconomic factors, and that it did not commit manifest errors in applying the precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches. The court also rejects the claim of misuse of powers. This judgment reinforces the Council’s discretion in balancing various factors when setting fishing quotas, while still adhering to the broader objectives of sustainable fisheries management.
Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre élargie) du 25 juin 2025.#Uniper Global Commodities SE contre Agence de l’Union européenne pour la coopération des régulateurs de l’énergie.#Énergie – Marché intérieur de l’électricité – Règlement (UE) 2017/2195 – Décision de l’ACER sur la modification de la méthodologie de fixation du prix de l’énergie d’équilibrage – Imposition d’une limite de prix temporaire – Recours formé devant la commission de recours de l’ACER – Conditions et modalités particulières de recours – Article 28, paragraphe 1, et article 29 du règlement (UE) 2019/942 – Irrecevabilité pour absence de qualité pour agir devant la commission de recours – Exception d’illégalité – Égalité en droit et protection juridictionnelle effective – Défaut d’affectation individuelle – Qualités ou situations de fait non invoquées – Délai de recours – Absence d’erreur excusable.#Affaire T-96/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by Uniper Global Commodities SE against the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). The case concerns a decision by ACER on the methodology for pricing balancing energy in the internal electricity market.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses Uniper’s challenge to ACER’s decision rejecting Uniper’s appeal against ACER’s initial decision, which imposed a temporary price limit on balancing energy.
* Uniper’s primary claim seeks annulment of ACER’s decision rejecting its appeal (Decision A-003-2022), while its subsidiary claim seeks annulment of ACER’s initial decision (Decision No. 03/2022).
* The court examines whether Uniper had the right to appeal ACER’s initial decision before ACER’s Board of Appeal.
* The judgment discusses the interpretation of Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/942, which defines who can appeal ACER decisions.
* The court considers whether the requirement for individual concern in Article 28(1) of Regulation 2019/942 is compatible with the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of equality before the law under Article 20 of the Charter.
* The judgment also addresses the timeliness of Uniper’s subsidiary claim for annulment of the initial ACER decision.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Article 28(1) of Regulation 2019/942:** This article is crucial for determining who has the right to appeal ACER decisions. It allows appeals by those to whom the decision is addressed or those who are directly and individually concerned by it.
* **Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:** Guarantees the right to effective judicial protection. The court examines whether the appeal process before ACER and the possibility of appealing to the General Court ensure this right.
* **Article 263 TFEU:** This article defines the conditions under which the Court of Justice of the European Union can review the legality of acts of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies.
* **The concept of “individual concern”:** The judgment clarifies that for a party other than the addressee of a decision to be individually concerned, the decision must affect them due to certain attributes that are particular to them or a factual situation that differentiates them from all other persons.
* **Time limits for bringing actions:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting the time limits for bringing actions before the EU courts, as defined in Article 263 TFEU.
In the end, the court dismissed Uniper’s action, finding that Uniper was not individually concerned by ACER’s decision and that Uniper’s subsidiary claim was time-barred.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 June 2025.Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM v European Commission.State aid – Tax treatment of operators of public casinos in Germany – Levy on the profits – Deductibility of the amounts paid in respect of that levy from the tax base for corporation and trade tax – Decision not to raise any objections – No serious difficulties – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Selective nature.Case T-510/20 RENV.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a case concerning State aid in Germany. The case revolves around the tax treatment of public casino operators in North Rhine-Westphalia, specifically the deductibility of a levy on profits from corporation and trade tax. The court ultimately dismisses the action brought by Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM, who argued that the tax treatment constituted illegal State aid.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the action brought by the applicants, seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision not to raise objections to the German tax treatment of casino operators.
* It details the background of the dispute, including the relevant German laws and the specific tax arrangements in North Rhine-Westphalia.
* It summarizes the forms of order sought by the applicants and the Commission.
* The core of the judgment lies in its legal analysis, where the court examines the applicants’ plea that the Commission infringed their procedural rights by not initiating a formal investigation. This analysis is divided into several parts, addressing the Commission’s assessment of the measure and its classification under EU State aid rules.
* The court addresses the concept of “selective advantage” and the three-step examination the Commission must carry out to classify a national tax measure as such.
* The court examines whether the Commission encountered serious difficulties in determining the applicable reference system.
* The court examines the existence of a derogation from the reference system.
* The court addresses the first part of the single plea in law, alleging distortion of the applicants’ arguments.
* Finally, the judgment concludes with a ruling on costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment focuses on whether the Commission should have initiated a formal investigation procedure into the German tax treatment. The court emphasizes that such a procedure is necessary if the Commission encounters “serious difficulties” in assessing whether a measure constitutes State aid. The court’s analysis centers on the concept of “selectivity,” a key element in determining whether a measure constitutes State aid. The court examines whether the Commission correctly identified the “reference system” (the normal tax rules) and whether the tax treatment of casino operators deviated from that system, thereby conferring a selective advantage.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are:
* The detailed explanation of the “selective advantage” concept in State aid law and the three-step analysis the Commission must undertake.
* The emphasis on the importance of correctly identifying the “reference system” as the starting point for assessing selectivity.
* The court’s discussion of the Commission’s obligation to accept a Member State’s interpretation of its national law unless there is evidence to the contrary.
* The court’s analysis of whether the Commission encountered “serious difficulties” in its preliminary assessment, which would have required it to initiate a formal investigation.
* The court’s application of these principles to the specific facts of the case, including the German tax treatment of casino operators and the deductibility of the levy on profits.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 June 2025.Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark NERO CHAMPAGNE – Earlier PDO ‘Champagne’ – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 103(2)(a) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Trade mark that contains a PDO – Products complying with the product specification of the PDO – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-239/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for an EU trade mark. The Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) opposed the registration of the word mark “NERO CHAMPAGNE” by Nero Lifestyle Srl, based on the earlier Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) “Champagne”. The court partially annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which had rejected the opposition in part.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: The court reviews the background of the dispute, including the application for the trade mark, the opposition filed, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It then outlines the forms of order sought by the parties. The court’s legal reasoning is divided into sections addressing the claim for annulment, specifically focusing on alleged infringements of Article 8(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 (the EU trade mark regulation) in conjunction with Article 103(2)(a) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (the regulation establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products), as well as breaches of the obligation to state reasons and the principles of equal treatment and good administration. Finally, the court addresses the claim for alteration and the allocation of costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the interpretation of Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013. The court clarifies that this provision, which protects PDOs against commercial use that exploits their reputation, is not limited to products that do not comply with the PDO’s product specification. The court rejects the “limitation theory” applied by the Board of Appeal, which presumed that a trade mark registered exclusively for products complying with the PDO specification and related services cannot exploit the PDO’s reputation. The court finds that the Board of Appeal erred in failing to conduct a case-by-case analysis to assess whether the mark applied for exploited the reputation of the “Champagne” PDO. The court also finds that the Board of Appeal failed to adequately state the reasons for its decision. Furthermore, the court finds that the Board of Appeal incorrectly assessed whether the mark applied for could mislead consumers as to the nature and essential qualities of the wine, in violation of Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No 1308/2013.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2025.Pavel Ezubov v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and restrictions on admission to the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘person benefitting from a leading businessperson’ – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Error of assessment.Case T-273/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Pavel Ezubov, a Russian businessman, in the context of actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Mr. Ezubov challenged the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the EU’s sanctions lists, arguing that the Council made an error in assessing that he was benefitting from his cousin, Oleg Deripaska, a leading Russian businessman already subject to sanctions. The General Court annulled the Council’s decisions, finding that the Council had not provided sufficient evidence to justify maintaining Mr. Ezubov’s name on the sanctions lists.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses an action brought by Mr. Ezubov against the Council of the European Union, seeking the annulment of Council Decisions (CFSP) 2024/847 and 2024/2456, as well as Council Implementing Regulations (EU) 2024/849 and 2024/2455. These acts prolonged the inclusion of Mr. Ezubov on the EU’s sanctions lists related to actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the initial imposition of sanctions in 2014 and subsequent amendments.
* It details the specific legal acts challenged by Mr. Ezubov and the grounds for his challenge.
* It presents the forms of order sought by both parties (Mr. Ezubov and the Council).
* The core of the judgment lies in the “Law” section, where the Court assesses Mr. Ezubov’s pleas, particularly focusing on the alleged error of assessment by the Council.
* The Court interprets the “benefitting” criterion under Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended, clarifying that it covers non-negligible benefits, regardless of their nature, and considers the objective of preventing circumvention of sanctions.
* The Court then applies this interpretation to Mr. Ezubov’s case, examining the evidence presented by the Council regarding the transfer of assets from Mr. Deripaska to Mr. Ezubov.
* Ultimately, the Court concludes that the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Ezubov was “benefitting” from Mr. Deripaska in a way that justified maintaining his name on the sanctions lists.
* The judgment concludes by annulling the contested acts insofar as they concern Mr. Ezubov and ordering the Council to pay the costs.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The key provision at the heart of the judgment is Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended, which allows for the freezing of funds and economic resources of “leading businesspersons operating in Russia and their immediate family members, or other natural persons, benefitting from them.”
The judgment provides important clarification on the interpretation of the term “benefitting” within the context of EU sanctions. It specifies that a “benefit” must be non-negligible and can be financial or non-financial. The Court emphasizes that the Council must demonstrate that the person subject to sanctions is actually taking advantage of the sanctioned individual, not vice versa.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
For those interested in EU sanctions law, particularly in the context of Ukraine, this judgment offers valuable insights into the standard of evidence required to justify the imposition of restrictive measures. It highlights the importance of a solid factual basis for sanctions decisions and clarifies the interpretation of the “benefitting” criterion. The judgment also underscores the need for the Council to demonstrate a direct link between the alleged benefit and the objectives of the sanctions regime.
**** This judgment has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the EU’s efforts to impose restrictive measures on individuals and entities contributing to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The judgment emphasizes the need for due process and a solid factual basis when imposing sanctions, which is crucial for ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the EU’s response to the situation in Ukraine.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2025.Certinvest SRL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Premium Quality REGAL Bakery – Earlier EU word mark REGAL and earlier EU figurative mark Regal – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-431/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The core issue is whether the figurative mark “Premium Quality REGAL Bakery” applied for by Certinvest SRL can be registered, or if it infringes on the earlier EU word mark “REGAL” and the earlier EU figurative mark “Regal” held by Regal Ventures Ltd. The court ultimately decided that the Certinvest SRL mark cannot be registered due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier marks.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Details the application for the “Premium Quality REGAL Bakery” mark, the opposition filed by Regal Ventures Ltd based on their earlier “REGAL” marks, and the decisions of the EUIPO Opposition Division and Board of Appeal.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines what the applicant (Certinvest SRL), EUIPO, and the intervener (Regal Ventures Ltd) are asking the court to do.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and analysis. It addresses:
* **Admissibility of the Action:** The court confirms that the action brought by Certinvest SRL is admissible, despite arguments from the intervener that it didn’t meet procedural requirements.
* **Substance (Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001):** This is the heart of the judgment. The court analyzes whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks, considering:
* The relevant public and their level of attention.
* The comparison of the goods and services covered by the marks.
* The comparison of the signs (visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity).
* The inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark.
* The overall existence of a likelihood of confusion.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment focuses on applying established principles of EU trade mark law to the specific facts of the case. There are no novel legal principles introduced. The key findings include:
* The relevant public (consumers of bakery goods and related retail services) has, at most, an average level of attention.
* The goods and services covered by the marks are identical or similar.
* The word element “REGAL” is the dominant element in the “Premium Quality REGAL Bakery” mark.
* The marks have at least an average degree of visual and phonetic similarity.
* The earlier “REGAL” mark has an average degree of inherent distinctiveness.
* Due to these factors, there is a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public, preventing the registration of the “Premium Quality REGAL Bakery” mark.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are the court’s detailed analysis of the likelihood of confusion, including the assessment of:
* **Dominant elements:** The court’s determination that “REGAL” is the dominant element in the applied-for mark is crucial to the finding of similarity.
* **Similarity of goods/services:** The court confirms a broad view of similarity, including retail services related to the goods.
* **Conceptual similarity:** The court acknowledges conceptual differences but finds their impact limited due to the weak distinctiveness of the elements creating those differences.
* **Inherent distinctiveness:** The court emphasizes that a meaningless term for the relevant public can still have average distinctiveness.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of conducting thorough trade mark searches before applying for registration and highlights the potential for conflict even when a new mark includes additional elements.
Urteil des Gerichts (Dritte erweiterte Kammer) vom 25. Juni 2025.#RWE Supply & Trading GmbH gegen Agentur der Europäischen Union für die Zusammenarbeit der Energieregulierungsbehörden.#Energie – Elektrizitätsbinnenmarkt – Verordnung (EU) 2017/2195 – Entscheidung der ACER über die Änderung der Preisbildungsmethode für Regelarbeit – Festsetzung einer vorübergehenden Preisgrenze – Beschwerde vor dem Beschwerdeausschuss der ACER – Besondere Bedingungen und Einzelheiten für die Klageerhebung – Art. 28 Abs. 1 und Art. 29 der Verordnung (EU) 2019/942 – Unzulässigkeit wegen fehlender Beschwerdebefugnis vor dem Beschwerdeausschuss – Einrede der Rechtswidrigkeit – Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz und effektiver gerichtlicher Rechtsschutz – Keine individuelle Betroffenheit – Nicht geltend gemachte Eigenschaften oder Umstände – Klagefrist – Kein entschuldbarer Irrtum.#Rechtssache T-95/23.
This is an analysis of the *Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre élargie) 25 juin 2025* (Judgement of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 June 2025).
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This judgment concerns a case brought before the General Court of the European Union by RWE Supply & Trading GmbH against the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). The case revolves around ACER’s decision to modify the methodology for pricing balancing energy, specifically imposing a temporary price limit. RWE challenged ACER’s decision, but the Board of Appeal of ACER rejected RWE’s appeal as inadmissible due to a lack of standing. The General Court’s judgment addresses the admissibility of RWE’s action and the legality of ACER’s decision.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the context of the dispute, including ACER’s initial decision on the pricing methodology, the proposed amendment by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E), and the subsequent decision by ACER to impose a temporary price limit.
* **Procedural History:** It details the steps taken by RWE, including its appeal to the Board of Appeal of ACER and the latter’s decision to reject the appeal.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments put forward by RWE and ACER before the General Court.
* **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the General Court examines the various pleas raised by RWE, including violations of EU law and fundamental rights. The Court considers the admissibility of RWE’s action, the interpretation of relevant regulations, and the legality of ACER’s decision.
* **Decision:** The General Court dismisses RWE’s action, upholding ACER’s decision.
**Main provisions and changes:**
The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 (establishing a guideline on electricity balancing) and Regulation (EU) 2019/942 (establishing ACER). It clarifies the conditions under which a party can challenge ACER’s decisions, particularly regarding the requirement of being individually concerned by the decision.
**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the admissibility of actions against ACER decisions. The General Court emphasizes that:
* A party can only challenge an ACER decision if it is either the addressee of the decision or is directly and individually concerned by it.
* The concept of being “individually concerned” requires the party to be affected by the decision in a way that is specific to them, due to certain attributes or factual circumstances that distinguish them from all other persons.
* The judgment confirms that the possibility to determine, with more or less precision, the number or even the identity of the subjects of law to whom a measure applies does not in any way imply that these must be considered as individually concerned by this measure, since this application is carried out by virtue of an objective situation of law or of fact defined by the act in question
* The judgment clarifies the relationship between the possibility of appealing to ACER’s Board of Appeal and the right to bring an action before the EU Courts. It confirms that, in certain cases, parties may have the right to directly challenge ACER decisions before the EU Courts without first appealing to the Board of Appeal.
* The judgment confirms that the possibility to seize directly the EU Court in the cases where the conditions of admissibility of Article 28 of Regulation are not fulfilled is without incidence, because such a reference would have been purely declaratory, the Article 263 TFEU not having to be transposed into the derived law of the Union to be applicable.
These clarifications are crucial for understanding the legal avenues available to parties affected by ACER decisions in the energy sector.
Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 25 juin 2025.#FG contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Pension d’ancienneté – Droits à pension acquis avant l’entrée au service de l’Union – Transfert au régime de l’Union – Déduction de la revalorisation du capital intervenue entre la date de la demande de transfert et celle du transfert effectif – Remboursement d’une partie du montant de la revalorisation – Droit de propriété – Exception d’illégalité.#Affaire T-495/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) in case T-495/24, concerning a dispute between a European Commission official (FG) and the Commission itself. The case revolves around the transfer of pension rights acquired by the official before joining the EU civil service to the EU pension scheme. The core issue is whether the official is entitled to a reimbursement of the increased value of his pension capital that occurred between the date he requested the transfer and the date the transfer actually took place.
The structure of the judgment is typical for court decisions, beginning with an introduction of the parties and the subject matter, followed by a summary of the background facts, the arguments of each party, and the court’s legal reasoning leading to its decision. The court dismisses the applicant’s claim that he is entitled to the reimbursement of EUR 32,723.22, which represents the increase in value of his pension capital during the transfer process. The court rejects the applicant’s arguments that the Commission’s decision violates his property rights under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
The most important provision for its use is the court’s interpretation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of EU officials, in conjunction with Article 7(1) of the Commission’s General Implementing Provisions (GIPs). The court clarifies that the Commission is entitled to deduct from the transferred capital the portion representing the increase in value between the request and the actual transfer. However, this deduction is limited to the part of the capital that will be converted into pensionable years under the EU scheme. If a portion of the transferred capital is to be reimbursed to the official because it cannot be converted into pensionable years, the increase in value associated with that portion must also be reimbursed to the official.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2025.Ryanair DAC v European Commission.State aid – German air transport market – Public loan guaranteed by Germany to Condor Flugdienst in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic – Decision not to raise any objections – Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence – Article 107(2)(b) TFEU – Assessment of the damage – Direct causal link – Assessment of the amount of the aid – Principle of non-discrimination – Freedom to provide services – Freedom of establishment – Obligation to state reasons.Case T-366/22.
This is the Judgment of the General Court in the case between Ryanair DAC and the European Commission regarding State aid granted to Condor Flugdienst GmbH by Germany in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns Ryanair’s challenge to the European Commission’s decision to approve a German public loan guarantee to Condor Flugdienst as State aid. This aid was intended to compensate Condor for damages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically travel restrictions. The General Court dismisses Ryanair’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision that the aid was compatible with the internal market under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, which allows aid to make good the damage caused by exceptional occurrences. The court finds that Ryanair failed to demonstrate that the Commission should have had doubts about the compatibility of the aid.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Describes Condor’s situation, including its previous financial difficulties and the various State aid measures it received.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the requests of Ryanair (applicant) and the Commission, Germany, and Condor (defendants/interveners).
* **Law:** Details the legal arguments and the court’s analysis.
* **Admissibility:** Examines whether Ryanair has the right to challenge the decision. The court finds Ryanair has the right to protect its procedural rights but not to challenge the merits of the decision.
* **Merits of the Pleas:** Assesses Ryanair’s arguments regarding misapplication of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, breach of principles of non-discrimination, freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, infringement of procedural rights, and failure to state reasons.
* **Costs:** Determines who is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* **Article 107(2)(b) TFEU:** The court focuses on the application of this article, which allows State aid to compensate for damages caused by exceptional occurrences. The key aspects are the assessment of damage, the direct causal link between the damage and the event, and the proportionality of the aid.
* **Admissibility of Action:** The court distinguishes between the right to challenge procedural aspects and the right to challenge the substance of the Commission’s decision. Ryanair’s right to challenge the substance is limited.
* **Assessment of Damage:** The court examines Ryanair’s arguments regarding the Commission’s methodology for calculating the damage suffered by Condor, including the metrics used (EBT), the reliance on Condor’s business plan, and the distinction between damage caused by COVID-19 and Condor’s pre-existing difficulties.
* **Non-Discrimination:** The court addresses Ryanair’s claim that the aid is discriminatory because it benefits only Condor. The court finds that the selective nature of the aid is justified under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.
* **Freedom to Provide Services and Establishment:** The court rejects Ryanair’s argument that the aid restricts these freedoms, finding that any restrictive effects are inherent in the nature of State aid.
* **Obligation to State Reasons:** The court finds that the Commission adequately stated the reasons for its decision, despite some omissions of confidential data.
**Main Provisions Important for Use:**
* The judgment clarifies the conditions under which State aid can be granted to compensate for damages caused by exceptional occurrences like the COVID-19 pandemic.
* It emphasizes the need for a direct causal link between the exceptional occurrence and the damage, and the importance of ensuring that the aid is proportional to the damage.
* It provides guidance on the assessment of damage, including the use of counterfactual scenarios and the consideration of avoided costs.
* It confirms that the principles of non-discrimination, freedom to provide services, and freedom of establishment do not preclude State aid that meets the requirements of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.
* It clarifies the extent to which competitors can challenge State aid decisions, distinguishing between procedural rights and the right to challenge the substance of the decision.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
This document is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority stating that it has no objections to a state aid measure implemented by Norway. The measure concerns amendments to the employee share option tax scheme for start-up and growth companies. The aim of the scheme is to improve the ability of these companies to attract and retain key employees through tax exemptions on employee share options. The scheme is budgeted at NOK 20 million annually and runs from 2022 to 2031.
The document is structured as a brief announcement providing key details of the decision. It includes the date of the decision (12 March 2025), the case number (93520), the decision number (020/25/COL), and identifies Norway as the EFTA State implementing the aid. It specifies that the scheme applies to all regions within Norway. The legal basis for the scheme is Section 5-14 of the Norwegian Tax Act. The form of aid is a tax exemption, and the objective is to support start-up and growth companies in recruiting and retaining key employees. The granting authority is the Ministry of Finance in Norway.
The most important aspect of this decision is that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has approved Norway’s amended employee share option tax scheme. This means that Norwegian start-up and growth companies can continue to benefit from the tax exemptions on employee share options without concerns about violating state aid rules. This provides these companies with a financial advantage in attracting and retaining talent, which is crucial for their growth and development.
