Legislative Review
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/718
This regulation tightens the rules around perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and its derivatives, which are persistent organic pollutants. The regulation lowers the acceptable level of PFOS in substances, mixtures, and articles to 0.025 mg/kg, aligning it with the stricter limits for PFOA. Additionally, it sets a limit of 1 mg/kg for the total concentration of PFOS-related compounds. The regulation also eliminates an exception for PFOS use as a mist suppressant in hard chromium plating, as alternatives are now available.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1280
This regulation extends the deadline for EU member states to submit requests for amendments to their CAP Strategic Plans, specifically concerning the transfer of funds between different components. The new deadline is August 31, 2025, instead of the original May 31, 2025. This extension allows member states more time to assess and plan these financial transfers, especially given the agricultural sector’s current instability.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1275
This regulation corrects errors in several language versions of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/857, which deals with assessing risks related to interest rate changes affecting the economic value of equity and net interest income. The corrections ensure accurate interpretation of the original regulation across different language versions by amending the definition of risk-free interest rates, applicable interest rates, the term structure of interest rates, the type of product concerned, and the conditions under which certain obligations apply.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1253
This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122, concerning the Union Registry for the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The changes include provisions for setting the account status of maritime operators and installations excluded from the EU ETS, reporting historical emissions, blocking operator accounts for non-compliance with surrendering obligations, modifying rules for aviation allowance allocation, clarifying data publication, extending the timeframe for transaction reversal requests, and introducing a mechanism for the restitution of allowances.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1257
This regulation approves 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (MIT) as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6 (preservatives for products during storage). The approval is subject to specific conditions, including requirements for product assessment, labeling of treated articles, and concentration limits for MIT in mixtures intended for non-professional users.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1294
This regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 1484/95, updating the representative import prices for certain poultrymeat products. The annex lists specific poultry products with their corresponding representative prices and origins, ensuring import duties accurately reflect current market conditions.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1260
This regulation approves peracetic acid generated from 1,3-diacetyloxypropan-2-yl acetate and hydrogen peroxide for use in product-type 2 biocidal products (disinfectants and algaecides). It specifies the purity levels of the precursors and sets conditions for product authorization, including a detailed product assessment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1248
This regulation renews the approval of epsilon-metofluthrin as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18 (insecticides, acaricides, and products to control other arthropods). Product assessments must pay particular attention to exposures, risks, and efficacy, and there are labeling requirements for treated articles.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1277
This regulation amends Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, adding Abubakar Swalleh to the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures for association with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. All funds and economic resources belonging to or controlled by him are subject to being frozen within the EU.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1278
This regulation amends Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, adding Nathalie Yamb, a social media influencer, to the list of individuals subject to sanctions for supporting Russia’s destabilizing activities through information manipulation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1243
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1288, reallocating unused quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish products from Cabo Verde. It increases the quotas for mackerel and frigate tuna, while maintaining the overall quantity covered by the derogation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1234
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226, expanding the use of electronic instructions for use to all medical devices intended for professional users. It ensures instructions for laypersons are still provided in paper form and mandates manufacturers provide the internet address for electronic instructions in the UDI database.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1254
This regulation authorises the use of riboflavin (Vitamin B2) produced from Eremothecium ashbyi CCTCCM 2019833 as a feed additive for all animal species. It specifies the identification and characterization of the additive, as well as analytical methods and directions for use.
Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 228/2013
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 to provide additional support and flexibility to the EU’s outermost regions, particularly Mayotte, following severe natural disasters. It allows beneficiaries to continue receiving POSEI programme support and provides additional EAFRD support for Mayotte.
Court of Justice Judgment in Case C-485/23 P (enercity AG v Commission)
This judgment concerns an appeal against the General Court’s decision to dismiss enercity AG’s action for annulment of a Commission decision approving the RWE/E.ON Assets concentration. While the Court dismissed the action, it clarifies the importance of demonstrating a direct and individual concern to establish standing in competition cases.
Court of Justice Judgment Regarding Joined Cases Involving Makeleio EPE and Zougla G.R. AE
This judgment clarifies the application of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2010/13/EU) to both traditional and internet-based media service providers. It emphasizes that national legislation cannot discriminate between these providers regarding the obligation to respect human dignity.
Court of Justice Judgment on Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100
This judgment confirms the validity of Delegated Directive 2022/2100, which amends Directive 2014/40/EU concerning tobacco products. It upholds the changes introduced by the directive, including the removal of exemptions for heated tobacco products regarding flavorings and labeling.
Court of Justice Judgment Concerning Labeling of Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products
This judgment clarifies that traditional herbal medicinal products cannot simultaneously be considered “plant-based traditional herbal preparations” under organic production regulations. The labeling of these products must comply with Directive 2001/83/EC and should not be promotional.
Court of Justice Judgment in Case C-484/23 P (Mainova AG v Commission)
This judgment concerns an appeal against the General Court’s decision to dismiss Mainova’s action for annulment of a Commission decision approving the RWE/E.ON Assets concentration. The Court clarifies the criteria for determining when a third party is individually concerned by a Commission decision on a concentration.
Court of Justice Judgment in Cases C-776/23 P to C-780/23 P
This judgment concerns appeals by the Commission against the General Court’s annulment of the Commission’s decision regarding a Spanish tax scheme. The Court dismissed the Commission’s appeals, determining that previous Commission decisions related to both direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings and protected legitimate expectations.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision Regarding Norway’s Employee Share Option Tax Scheme
The EFTA Surveillance Authority states it has no objections to a Norwegian state aid measure amending the employee share option tax scheme for start-up and growth companies, with the aim to improve the ability of these companies to attract and retain key employees through tax exemptions on employee share options. The scheme will be in effect from 2022 to 2031.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/718 of 14 April 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/718 amends Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 concerning persistent organic pollutants (POPs), specifically focusing on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and its derivatives. The key aim is to tighten the unintentional trace contaminant (UTC) limit values for PFOS to align them with the stricter limits already in place for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and related compounds. This adjustment reflects the feasibility of achieving lower contamination levels with these chemicals, based on recent technological advancements. Additionally, the regulation removes an outdated exemption for the use of PFOS as a mist suppressant in hard chromium plating, as alternatives are now available.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation and the date from which points 2 and 3 of the Annex shall apply. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2019/1021. These include:
* **Revised Nomenclature:** The description in the first column is updated to “Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), its salts and PFOS-related compounds,” ensuring consistency with the entry for PFOA.
* **Lowered UTC Limit Values:** Point 1 in the fourth column is replaced, setting a limit of 0.025 mg/kg (0.0000025 % by weight) for PFOS or its salts in substances, mixtures, or articles.
* **Aggregated Limit for PFOS-related Compounds:** Point 2 in the fourth column is replaced, setting a limit of 1 mg/kg (0.0001 % by weight) for the sum of concentrations of all PFOS-related compounds in substances, mixtures, or articles.
* **Removal of Redundant Points:** Points 4 and 5 in the fourth column, which referred to specific exemptions and the availability of analytical methods, are deleted.
The most important provisions for practical use are the revised UTC limit values for PFOS and its related compounds. Businesses and manufacturers need to ensure that their products and processes comply with these stricter limits. The regulation also eliminates the exemption for PFOS as a mist suppressant, meaning that companies still using PFOS for this purpose must switch to alternative substances.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1280 of 21 May 2025 amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/370 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the time period to submit requests for amendments of CAP Strategic Plans
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1280 amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/370, focusing on the deadlines for Member States to submit requests for amendments to their CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) Strategic Plans. Specifically, it addresses amendments related to the transfer of funds between different CAP components. The regulation extends the deadline for submitting these specific amendment requests from May 31, 2025, to August 31, 2025. This adjustment aims to provide Member States with additional time to assess and plan these financial transfers, considering the instability in the agricultural sector.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 modifies Article 3 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/370 by replacing the original deadline for submitting amendment requests related to fund transfers (Article 17(5), Article 88(7), and Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115) with a new deadline of August 31, 2025. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will come into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from June 1, 2025. This ensures there is no legal gap between the original deadline and the amended one.
The most important provision for Member States is the extension of the deadline for submitting requests for amendments related to the transfer of funds under the CAP Strategic Plans. Member States now have until August 31, 2025, instead of May 31, 2025, to submit these requests. This additional time allows for a more thorough evaluation and planning of financial transfers within the CAP framework, which is particularly relevant given the current instability in the agricultural sector.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1275 of 17 March 2025 correcting certain language versions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/857 supplementing Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying a standardised methodology and a simplified standardised methodology to evaluate the risks arising from potential changes in interest rates that affect both the economic value of equity and the net interest income of an institution’s non-trading book activities
This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1275 serves to correct errors found in several language versions of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/857. The original regulation supplements Directive 2013/36/EU, focusing on regulatory technical standards for assessing risks related to interest rate changes affecting the economic value of equity and net interest income of a credit institution’s non-trading book activities. Due to errors in the language versions, the meaning of specific provisions was altered, necessitating this correction.
The structure of the act is simple: it contains a preamble outlining the reasons for the corrections, followed by two articles. Article 1 specifies that it does not concern the English language version, implying that the corrections are for other language versions only. Article 2 states the regulation’s entry into force, which is twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not introduce new provisions but amends the language of existing ones in the original Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/857.
The most important aspect of this regulation is that it ensures the accuracy and consistency of the original Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/857 across different language versions. The corrections address errors related to the definition of risk-free interest rates, applicable interest rates, the term structure of interest rates, the type of product concerned, and the conditions under which certain obligations apply. For financial institutions and regulators in the EU, particularly those operating in the countries whose language versions were corrected, it is crucial to refer to the corrected language versions to ensure compliance and accurate interpretation of the rules for evaluating interest rate risks.
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 provisions of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1253:
This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122, which supplements Directive 2003/87/EC concerning the functioning of the Union Registry for the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The amendments address various issues, including the status of accounts for shipping companies and installations excluded from the EU ETS, reporting of historical emissions, compliance with surrendering obligations, allocation of allowances for aviation fuels, publication of emissions data, reversal of transactions, and restitution of allowances. The goal is to improve the functioning and accuracy of the Union Registry and ensure compliance with the EU ETS.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured as an amending act, directly modifying the text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1122. It consists of two articles: Article 1 details the specific amendments to the original regulation, and Article 2 covers the entry into force and application dates of the new provisions. The amendments are further elaborated in five annexes, which provide updated tables and texts to be incorporated into the original regulation.
Key changes include:
* **Account Status for Excluded Entities:** Introduces provisions for setting the account status of maritime operators and installations to “excluded” when they are no longer covered by the EU ETS.
* **Reporting of Historical Emissions:** Mandates national administrators to create a national competent authority account for reporting historical emissions in 2025 and verified emissions in 2026.
* **Compliance and Account Blocking:** Establishes a mechanism for blocking operator accounts if the required number of allowances has not been surrendered.
* **Aviation Allowance Allocation:** Modifies the rules for transferring aviation allowances to be auctioned and extends the aviation allocation table to include additional support mechanisms.
* **Data Publication:** Clarifies the publication of emissions data for aircraft operators on the Union Registry’s public website.
* **Transaction Reversal:** Extends the timeframe for submitting requests for reversal of transactions performed in error.
* **Restitution of Allowances:** Introduces a mechanism for the restitution of allowances to operators when court rulings find their activities to be outside the scope of the EU ETS.
**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Article 9(6b) and (6c):** These paragraphs are important for shipping companies and installations that may move in and out of the scope of the EU ETS. National administrators are now required to set the accounts of these entities to “excluded” status under certain conditions, which affects the processes that can be initiated from those accounts.
* **Article 15b(8):** This paragraph is crucial for national administrators as it mandates the creation of a national competent authority account for reporting historical and verified emissions. It also specifies the deadlines for reporting this data to the Commission.
* **Article 32a:** This article introduces a new mechanism for ensuring compliance with surrendering obligations. If an operator fails to surrender the required number of allowances, their account will be blocked, preventing further transactions until the overdue allowances are surrendered.
* **Article 58a:** This article outlines the conditions and process for the restitution of allowances to operators whose activities are found to be outside the scope of the EU ETS due to court rulings. The formula provided in paragraph 2 is essential for calculating the number of allowances to be restituted.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1257 of 26 June 2025 approving 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (MIT) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1257 approves 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (MIT) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 6, which are preservatives for products during storage. The regulation is based on Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products. The approval is subject to certain conditions outlined in the regulation’s annex, which aims to ensure that the use of MIT in biocidal products meets specific safety and efficacy criteria.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that MIT is approved as an active substance for product-type 6, contingent upon the conditions specified in the annex. Article 2 indicates the regulation’s entry into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides details on the identification of MIT, its minimum degree of purity, the approval and expiry dates, the product type, and specific conditions for its use. These conditions include requirements for product assessment, focusing on exposures, risks, and efficacy, particularly for industrial, professional, and non-professional users, as well as the impact on the soil compartment. It also specifies conditions for the placing on the market of treated articles containing MIT, including labeling requirements and restrictions on MIT concentrations in mixtures for non-professional users.
The most important provisions for the use of this act are those outlined in the Annex, specifically the conditions related to the authorization of biocidal products containing MIT and the placing on the market of treated articles. These provisions mandate thorough product assessments, specific labeling requirements for treated articles, and concentration limits for MIT in mixtures intended for non-professional users.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1294 of 25 June 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1294 amends Regulation (EC) No 1484/95, which lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin. The amending regulation updates the representative import prices for certain poultrymeat products to reflect variations in price according to their origin. This adjustment ensures that import duties accurately reflect current market conditions.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to the new regulation. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex contains a table specifying the CN code, description, representative price (EUR/100 kg), security under Article 3 (EUR/100 kg), and origin for various poultry products.
The most important provision is the updated Annex I, which lists specific poultry products with their corresponding representative prices and origins. For example, frozen “65 % chickens” from Brazil (BR) under CN code 0207 12 90 have a representative price of EUR 249.0 per 100 kg. Boneless cuts of fowls from Brazil (BR) and Chile (CL) under CN code 0207 14 10 have representative prices of EUR 341.7 and EUR 420.6 per 100 kg, respectively. Frozen legs and cuts thereof from Brazil (BR) under CN code 0207 14 60 have a representative price of EUR 165.0 per 100 kg. These updated prices are crucial for determining the correct import duties and ensuring fair trade practices within the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1260 of 26 June 2025 approving peracetic acid generated from 1,3-diacetyloxypropan-2-yl acetate and hydrogen peroxide as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 2 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1260 concerns the approval of peracetic acid generated from 1,3-diacetyloxypropan-2-yl acetate and hydrogen peroxide as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 2, which includes disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals. The regulation is based on Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products.
The regulation consists of a preamble that outlines the reasoning and legal basis for the decision, followed by two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that peracetic acid generated from 1,3-diacetyloxypropan-2-yl acetate and hydrogen peroxide is approved for use in product-type 2 biocidal products, subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides specific conditions for the approval, including the identity of the substance, minimum degree of purity, approval and expiry dates, product type, and specific conditions for product authorization.
The most important provisions of this act are in the Annex, which specifies the conditions for the approval of peracetic acid. It defines the minimum purity levels for the precursors (triacetin and hydrogen peroxide) and the range for the pure active substance (peracetic acid content). The authorization of biocidal products containing this active substance is subject to specific conditions, including a detailed product assessment that considers exposures, risks, and efficacy, especially for industrial and professional users. The approval is valid from 1 February 2027 to 31 January 2037.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1248 of 26 June 2025 renewing the approval of epsilon-metofluthrin as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1248 renews the approval of epsilon-metofluthrin as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18, which covers insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods. The regulation confirms that products containing epsilon-metofluthrin can continue to be used, provided they meet specific conditions outlined in the regulation. It also addresses the placing on the market of treated articles containing this substance, ensuring proper labeling and information for consumers. The renewal is based on the assessment that epsilon-metofluthrin still satisfies the criteria for use under Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, while also acknowledging its potential environmental impact.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the approval of epsilon-metofluthrin is renewed subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The annex specifies the common and IUPAC names, identification numbers, minimum degree of purity, expiry date of approval (May 31, 2032), product type (18), and specific conditions for the use of epsilon-metofluthrin. Compared to previous versions, this regulation introduces specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing epsilon-metofluthrin and for the placing on the market of treated articles, including labeling requirements.
The most important provisions for users are the conditions set out in the Annex. These include the requirement for product assessments to pay particular attention to exposures, risks, and efficacy, and the need to assess and manage potential residues in food or feed. Additionally, as of December 1, 2025, anyone placing treated articles containing epsilon-metofluthrin on the market must ensure that the label provides the information required by Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. The regulation also notes that epsilon-metofluthrin is a candidate for substitution, meaning that Member States must perform a comparative assessment when considering applications for authorization or renewal of products containing it.
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 adds one individual, Abubakar Swalleh, to the list of persons subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources. This addition is based on a decision by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council.
The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended according to the Annex of this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force immediately upon publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex lists the added individual with detailed identifying information, including aliases, gender, date and place of birth, nationality, passport number, national identification number, address, and other relevant information linking him to ISIL.
The most important provision is the inclusion of Abubakar Swalleh in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which means that all funds and economic resources belonging to or controlled by him are subject to being frozen within the EU. It is also prohibited to directly or indirectly make funds or economic resources available to him.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1278 of 26 June 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities
This Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1278 amends Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, which concerns restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities. The key purpose of this implementing regulation is to add one additional natural person to the list of individuals subject to sanctions as outlined in Annex I of the original regulation. This action is based on the Union’s condemnation of Russia’s malign activities and the gravity of the current situation.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 is amended as per the Annex to this new regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex provides the details of the individual being added to the sanctions list.
The most important provision of this regulation is the inclusion of Nathalie Yamb, a social media influencer, in the list of sanctioned individuals. The regulation provides identifying information (date and place of birth, nationality, gender) and a detailed statement of reasons for her listing. She is being sanctioned for supporting actions or policies attributable to the Russian government that undermine or threaten democracy, the rule of law, stability, or security in the Union or its Member States, specifically through information manipulation. Her ties with AFRIC, an organization linked to Russian private military companies, are also noted as a reason for the sanction.
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, reallocating unused quotas for certain prepared or preserved fish products from Cabo Verde. The regulation adjusts the quantities of tuna, mackerel, and frigate tuna fillets that can benefit from a derogation from preferential origin rules. This reallocation aims to support Cabo Verde’s fisheries sector by addressing the underutilization of tuna quotas and the needs for mackerel and frigate tuna processing.
The regulation consists of two articles and two annexes. Article 1 stipulates that Annexes I and II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1288 are replaced by the new Annexes I and II included in this regulation. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and the date of application, which is retroactively set to 1 January 2025. Annex I details the revised quotas for prepared or preserved fillets and loins of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna, as well as prepared white tuna. Annex II outlines the adjusted quotas for prepared or preserved fillets of mackerel and frigate tuna or frigate mackerel. The main change involves reallocating 700 tonnes of unused tuna quotas from 2024 to increase the quotas for mackerel (by 300 tonnes) and frigate tuna (by 400 tonnes) for 2025.
The most important provision is the reallocation of quotas specified in Annexes I and II, which directly impacts the quantities of fish products from Cabo Verde that can enter the EU market under preferential terms. Specifically, the increase in quotas for mackerel and frigate tuna, while maintaining the overall quantity covered by the derogation, is crucial for Cabo Verde’s fish processing companies. This adjustment addresses the previous limitations and supports employment in the fishing sector by allowing for more efficient processing and export of these fish products.
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 expanding the scope of medical devices for which instructions for use can be provided in electronic form rather than paper. The amendment is based on a survey indicating healthcare professionals’ preference for electronic instructions, aiming to improve the efficiency of healthcare delivery. The regulation extends the possibility of using electronic instructions to all medical devices intended for professional users, including those under transitional provisions and devices without a medical purpose.
The regulation modifies several articles of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2226. It broadens the scope to include all devices intended for professional users, clarifies the definition of “fixed installed devices,” and specifies that instructions for laypersons must still be provided in paper form when a device is also intended for use by professional users. It also removes redundant requirements related to manufacturer information, as these are already covered under conformity assessment activities. Furthermore, it mandates that manufacturers provide the internet address for electronic instructions for use to the UDI database once device registration in Eudamed becomes mandatory.
The most important provisions of this regulation are those that expand the use of electronic instructions for use to all medical devices intended for professional users, as this can significantly reduce paper waste and improve access to information for healthcare professionals. The requirement to provide instructions for laypersons in paper form ensures that patients who may not have access to or be comfortable with electronic devices still receive necessary information. Additionally, the mandate to include the internet address for electronic instructions in the UDI database will enhance traceability and access to up-to-date information for regulators and users.
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, in the form of a dried inactivated fermentation product, as a feed additive for all animal species. It classifies this additive as a ‘nutritional additive’ within the functional group of ‘vitamins, pro-vitamins and chemically well-defined substances having similar effect’. The regulation confirms the safety and efficacy of the additive based on scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
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 indicates the date of entry into force of the regulation. The Annex specifies the identification number of the feed additive (3a827), its composition, the animal species for which it is intended, and other provisions, including the end of the authorisation period.
The most important provisions of this act are those specified in the Annex. It includes the exact identification and characterization of the additive, including the producing strain (*Eremothecium ashbyi* CCTCCM 2019833), chemical formula, and CAS number. It also specifies the analytical methods for determining the presence of riboflavin in the feed additive, premixtures, and compound feed. Furthermore, it mandates specific directions for use regarding storage conditions and heat treatment stability, and it requires feed business operators to implement operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks to users, including the use of personal protective equipment. The authorisation is valid until 16 July 2035.
Regulation (EU) 2025/1276 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 as regards additional assistance to, and further flexibility in respect of, outermost regions affected by severe natural disasters and in the context of the devastation caused by cyclone Chido in Mayotte
This Regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 to provide additional support and flexibility to the EU’s outermost regions, particularly Mayotte, following severe natural disasters, specifically cyclone Chido. It aims to help these regions recover their agricultural production capacity and address vulnerabilities in their food systems. The amendments allow affected beneficiaries to continue receiving payments under the POSEI programme during the restoration period, and provide additional support through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The Regulation also introduces specific provisions for Mayotte to address the unique challenges it faces due to its remoteness.
The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 introduces amendments to Regulation (EU) No 228/2013:
– It adds a paragraph to Article 6, allowing Member States to propose amendments to the POSEI programme to support beneficiaries affected by natural disasters throughout the restoration period. These amendments are subject to annual review and monitoring.
– It adds a paragraph to Article 19, specifying that beneficiaries affected by natural disasters can continue to receive support for production, processing, or sale, provided they commit to restoring their agricultural production capacity.
– It adds paragraphs to Article 22, providing Mayotte with the possibility to approve applications for support after 30 June 2025, and setting a limit for EAFRD support for the measure referred to in Article 6a of Regulation (EU) 2020/2220.
Article 2 states that the Regulation enters into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
The most important provisions of this act are those that provide flexibility and additional support to outermost regions affected by natural disasters. Specifically, the ability for beneficiaries to continue receiving POSEI programme support during the restoration period, and the additional EAFRD support for Mayotte, are crucial for helping these regions recover and rebuild their agricultural sectors.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.enercity AG v European Commission.Appeal – Competition – Concentrations – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market – Action brought by a third party – Admissibility – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Locus standi.Case C-485/23 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) in Case C-485/23 P, concerning an appeal by enercity AG against the General Court’s decision to dismiss its action for annulment of a European Commission decision. The Commission’s decision declared the concentration between RWE and E.ON Assets compatible with the internal market. The core issue revolves around whether enercity AG, as a third party, has the legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the Commission’s decision.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the purpose of the appeal and the judgment being challenged. It then provides the background to the dispute, including the context of the concentration, the administrative procedure followed by the Commission, and the decision at issue. The judgment details the action brought before the General Court and the General Court’s judgment. It then outlines the procedure before the Court of Justice, including the forms of order sought by the parties. The Court then examines the grounds of appeal raised by enercity AG, focusing on the interpretation of Article 263 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) regarding standing to bring proceedings, alleged breaches of the rule of law, and errors in assessing the administrative procedures and agreements involved. Finally, the Court rules on the appeal, addresses the costs, and provides its decision.
The most important provision of the judgment is the Court’s ruling on the second part of the first ground of appeal, where it finds that the General Court failed to adequately state its reasons for concluding that there were no specific circumstances relating to the effects of the concentration on enercity AG’s market position. While the Court ultimately dismisses enercity AG’s action for annulment, it does so after conducting its own assessment of the arguments and evidence presented, finding that enercity AG failed to demonstrate that its market position was substantially affected by the concentration in a way that distinguished it individually from other competitors. This highlights the importance of demonstrating a direct and individual concern to establish standing in competition cases.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.Makeleio EPE v Ethniko Symvoulio Radiotileorasis (ESR).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2010/13/EU – Audiovisual media service providers – National legislation requiring respect for human dignity and prohibiting the broadcasting of content of poor quality – Principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law – Limits – Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law – Principle of legal certainty.Case C-555/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2010/13/EU). The case involves two Greek companies, Makeleio EPE and Zougla G.R. AE, which were fined by the Ethniko Symvoulio Radiotileorasis (ESR), the Greek National Broadcasting Council, for broadcasting content deemed to be of poor quality and disrespectful of human dignity. The core issue is whether Greek legislation, which imposes these obligations and penalties on traditional television broadcasters but not explicitly on internet-based audiovisual media service providers, is compatible with EU law, specifically the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The judgment is structured around several key areas:
1. **Background:** It outlines the facts of the cases, the legal context including EU and Greek law, and the questions referred by the Greek Council of State (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias).
2. **Preliminary Observations:** It addresses the classification of Makeleio and Zougla as media service providers under the Directive, clarifying the criteria for determining whether online content falls within the scope of the Directive.
3. **Analysis of the Questions:** It provides detailed answers to the questions referred, focusing on whether the obligation to respect human dignity and the prohibition of broadcasting inappropriate content fall within the scope of the Directive, and whether national legislation can discriminate between traditional and internet-based media service providers.
The most important provisions of the judgment are:
* **Scope of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive:** The CJEU clarifies that the Directive covers both traditional television broadcasters and online audiovisual media service providers. It emphasizes that the Directive aims to protect human dignity and sets minimum standards for audiovisual media services.
* **National Legislation and Equal Treatment:** The Court rules that national legislation cannot discriminate between traditional and internet-based media service providers regarding the obligation to respect human dignity and refrain from broadcasting content that undermines it. Such discrimination is incompatible with Article 6(1) of Directive 2010/13.
* **Principle of Legality (Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege):** The judgment underscores that while national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law, this principle is limited by the principle of legality. A broad interpretation of national law to include internet-based media service providers, where the law explicitly excludes them, would violate the principle that offenses and penalties must be clearly defined by law.
In essence, the CJEU’s judgment affirms that the Audiovisual Media Services Directive applies to both traditional and online media service providers regarding the protection of human dignity. However, it also cautions against interpreting national law in a way that would retroactively impose penalties on internet-based providers if the national law did not clearly apply to them at the time of the alleged offense.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2025.PJ Carroll & Company Ltd and Nicoventures Trading Ltd v The Minister for Health and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public health – Directive 2014/40/EU – Article 7(12) – Article 11(6) – Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100 – Validity – Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products – Delegation of power to the European Commission – Novel tobacco products – Heated tobacco products – Power to withdraw exemptions from prohibitions of flavourings and labelling requirements – Substantial change of circumstances.Case C-759/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the validity of Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100, which amends Directive 2014/40/EU concerning the manufacture, presentation, and sale of tobacco products. The case was brought to the CJEU by the High Court of Ireland, questioning whether the European Commission exceeded its powers by adopting the Delegated Directive, specifically concerning heated tobacco products. The CJEU ultimately ruled that the examination of the questions raised by the High Court of Ireland did not reveal any factors that would affect the validity of Delegated Directive 2022/2100.
The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by the High Court of Ireland. The first question concerns whether Delegated Directive 2022/2100 goes beyond the powers granted to the Commission by Article 7(12) and Article 11(6) of Directive 2014/40/EU, especially considering Article 290 TFEU and other articles of Directive 2014/40/EU. The Court examined whether the Commission overstepped its authority by defining a new category of tobacco products (“heated tobacco products”) and removing certain exemptions related to flavorings and labeling. The second question addresses whether the Commission was justified in concluding that there was a “substantial change of circumstances” as defined in Directive 2014/40/EU, which is a prerequisite for the Commission to act. The High Court questioned the methodology used by the Commission to assess this change, particularly whether it should have considered the overall tobacco content of heated tobacco products rather than just the number of units sold.
The most important provision of the act is the confirmation of the validity of Delegated Directive 2022/2100. This means that the changes introduced by this directive, specifically the removal of exemptions for heated tobacco products regarding flavorings and labeling requirements, are legally sound. This has significant implications for manufacturers and importers of heated tobacco products within the EU, as they must now comply with stricter regulations.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.SALUS Haus Dr. med Otto Greither Nachf. GmbH & Co.KG v Astrid Twardy GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article 1(29) – Article 16a – Traditional herbal medicinal products – Articles 62 – Information which is useful to the patient – Regulation (EU) 2018/848 – Article 2(1) – Scope – Indications on the outer packaging of a medicinal herbal tea – Use of terms referring to organic production.Case C-618/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the labeling of traditional herbal medicinal products, specifically herbal teas. The court was asked to clarify whether these products, when marketed as medicinal products, can also bear labels related to organic production under EU regulations for organic products. The case revolves around a dispute between two German companies, SALUS and Twardy, regarding the use of organic labeling on SALUS’s herbal teas.
The judgment clarifies the relationship between Directive 2001/83/EC on medicinal products and Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labeling. It states that traditional herbal medicinal products, as defined by Directive 2001/83/EC, cannot simultaneously be considered “plant-based traditional herbal preparations” under Regulation (EU) 2018/848. This means that the rules for medicinal products take precedence. The Court also finds that including information about organic production on the packaging of herbal medicinal products is not considered “useful to the patient” under Directive 2001/83/EC and could be seen as promotional.
The key takeaway from this judgment is that if a product is classified as a traditional herbal medicinal product, it must comply with the labeling requirements of Directive 2001/83/EC, and cannot use labeling elements from the organic production regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/848) unless they are deemed useful for the patient and not promotional. This ensures that information on medicinal products is primarily focused on the safe and correct use of the product, rather than marketing its organic origin.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission.Appeal – Competition – Concentrations – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market – Action brought by a third party – Admissibility – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Locus standi.Case C-469/23 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) regarding an appeal by eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG against the General Court’s decision, which dismissed their action for annulment of the Commission’s decision declaring the RWE/E.ON Assets concentration compatible with the internal market. The core issue revolves around whether eins energie in sachsen has the standing to challenge the Commission’s decision as a third party.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the appeal and the judgment being challenged. It then presents the background to the dispute, including the context of the concentration, the administrative procedure, and the decision at issue. Following this, it details the action before the General Court and the judgment under appeal, summarizing the General Court’s reasoning for dismissing the action as inadmissible. The judgment then outlines the procedure before the Court of Justice, the forms of order sought by the parties, and proceeds to analyze the grounds of appeal. The Court examines the second ground of appeal (misapplication of Article 263 TFEU) and the first ground of appeal (breach of the obligation to state reasons, distortion of facts, and breach of procedural rights). Finally, the Court provides its decision, setting aside the General Court’s judgment in part but ultimately dismissing the initial action for annulment.
The most important provision of this judgment is the interpretation and application of Article 263 TFEU, specifically the conditions under which a third party can challenge a Commission decision. The Court reiterates that a third party must be individually concerned by the decision, meaning it must be affected by the decision due to certain attributes that are peculiar to them or circumstances that differentiate them from all other persons. The judgment clarifies that while participation in the administrative procedure is a factor, it is not a mandatory condition. However, the third party must demonstrate that its market position is substantially affected by the concentration. In this specific case, the Court found that eins energie in sachsen failed to demonstrate that its market position was substantially affected, and therefore, it did not have the standing to challenge the Commission’s decision.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.EVH GmbH and Others v European Commission.Appeal – Competition – Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Concentration between undertakings – Market for the generation and wholesale supply of electricity – Acquisition by RWE AG of E.ON SE’s renewable and nuclear electricity generation assets – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.Joined Cases C-464/23 P, C-467/23 P and C-468/23 P.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding five appeals concerning a decision by the European Commission to approve a concentration in the electricity market. The core issue revolves around the acquisition by RWE AG of E.ON SE’s renewable and nuclear electricity generation assets. The appeals were brought by several German public sector energy companies challenging the Commission’s decision, arguing that the concentration would negatively impact competition.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the appeals and the judgments of the General Court that are being appealed.
* **Legal Context:** Cites relevant EU legislation, primarily Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EC Merger Regulation) and related guidelines.
* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the context of the concentration, the parties involved (RWE, E.ON, and the appellant energy companies), and the administrative procedure before the Commission.
* **Proceedings Before the General Court:** Summarizes the actions brought before the General Court and the court’s dismissal of those actions.
* **Procedure Before the Court of Justice:** Details the proceedings before the Court of Justice, including the forms of order sought by the parties.
* **The Appeals:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court of Justice analyzes each of the four grounds of appeal raised by the appellants:
* Infringement of Article 101 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and infringement of the appellants’ procedural rights.
* Misapplication of Article 3 of Regulation No 139/2004.
* Misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation No 139/2004.
* Breach of the principles relating to the allocation of the burden of proof.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment does not introduce new legislation or change existing laws. Instead, it interprets and applies existing competition law to a specific case. The Court of Justice upholds the General Court’s decision, finding that the Commission’s approval of the concentration was lawful.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
The most important aspects of this judgment are the Court’s interpretations of:
* **The relationship between Regulation No 139/2004 and Article 101 TFEU:** The Court clarifies that Regulation No 139/2004 is the primary instrument for assessing concentrations, even if agreements between the parties might also be scrutinized under Article 101 TFEU separately.
* **The concept of a “single concentration”:** The Court confirms that multiple transactions can only be treated as a single concentration if they ultimately lead to the same undertaking(s) acquiring control over one or more other undertakings. Asset swaps where independent undertakings gain control of different targets do not fall under this definition.
* **The standard of review for complex economic assessments:** The Court reiterates that the Commission has a margin of discretion in making complex economic assessments, and the EU courts’ review is limited to ensuring that the rules of procedure have been complied with, the facts have been accurately stated, and there has been no manifest error of assessment.
* **The burden of proof in competition cases:** The Court clarifies that while the Commission bears the initial burden of proof, appellants challenging the Commission’s decision must provide detailed evidence to counter the Commission’s position.
In essence, this judgment reinforces the Commission’s authority in assessing concentrations and clarifies the legal standards that apply in such cases.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH v European Commission.Appeal – Competition – Concentrations – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market – Action brought by a third party – Admissibility – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Locus standi.Case C-466/23 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) regarding an appeal by Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH against a General Court judgment. The General Court had dismissed Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland’s action for annulment of a European Commission decision declaring a concentration between RWE and E.ON assets compatible with the internal market. The core issue revolves around whether Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland, as a third party, had the standing to challenge the Commission’s decision.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background**: It outlines the context of the dispute, including the concentration between RWE and E.ON, the administrative procedure followed by the Commission, and the initial action before the General Court.
2. **Appeal**: It details the appellant’s claims and the arguments of the other parties (the Commission, E.ON, and RWE). The appellant raised six grounds of appeal, primarily concerning breaches of the obligation to state reasons, misapplication of Article 263 TFEU, and misapplication of regulations concerning concentrations.
3. **Court’s Analysis**: The Court of Justice addresses the grounds of appeal, focusing on whether the General Court erred in its assessment of Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland’s standing to bring the action. The court examines whether the appellant was individually concerned by the Commission’s decision, considering its participation in the administrative procedure and the effect of the decision on its market position.
4. **Decision**: The Court of Justice sets aside the General Court’s judgment in part, finding that the General Court failed to adequately explain why the appellant’s arguments regarding the effects on its market position were insufficient. However, the Court of Justice ultimately dismisses Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland’s action as inadmissible, concluding that the appellant had not demonstrated that it was individually concerned by the Commission’s decision.
The most important provision of this act is the interpretation and application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, which determines who has the right to challenge EU decisions in court. The judgment clarifies that for a third party to challenge a Commission decision on the compatibility of a concentration with the internal market, it must demonstrate that the decision affects them due to specific attributes or circumstances that differentiate them from all other persons. The judgment also emphasizes that mere participation in the administrative procedure is not sufficient to establish individual concern, and the third party’s market position must be substantially affected.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.European Commission v Kingdom of Spain and Others.Appeal – State aid – Article 108(3) TFEU – Tax scheme – Corporate tax provisions enabling companies that are tax resident in Spain to amortise the financial goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies that are tax resident outside that Member State – Decisions of the European Commission classifying those provisions as a State aid scheme and ordering the recovery of the aid, with the exception of aid relating to direct and indirect shareholdings acquired before a certain date set by the Commission in order to protect legitimate expectations – Subsequent Commission decision ordering the recovery of all aid relating to indirect shareholdings – Legal certainty.Joined Cases C-776/23 P to C-779/23 P.
This is the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) of 26 June 2025, concerning joined cases C-776/23 P to C-780/23 P. The appeals were brought by the European Commission against the judgments of the General Court, which had annulled the Commission’s decision regarding a Spanish tax scheme. This scheme allowed companies resident in Spain to amortize financial goodwill from acquiring shares in companies resident outside Spain. The Commission had classified this scheme as illegal State aid and ordered Spain to recover the aid, except for certain shareholdings acquired before a specific date.
The core issue revolves around whether a new administrative interpretation by Spain, which extended the tax scheme to cover indirect shareholding acquisitions, constituted new and illegal State aid. The Commission argued that it did, while Spain and the involved companies contended that it did not, based on the principle of legitimate expectations and the scope of previous Commission decisions.
The Court of Justice ultimately dismissed the Commission’s appeals, upholding the General Court’s annulment of the Commission’s decision. The Court found that previous Commission decisions (2011/5 and 2011/282) related to both direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings. Thus, the Commission could not classify the tax deduction of financial goodwill resulting from indirect acquisitions of shareholdings as a new State aid scheme.
The most important provision is the Court’s interpretation of the scope of Decisions 2011/5 and 2011/282. The Court explicitly states that these decisions relate to both direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings. This interpretation prevents the Commission from retroactively classifying indirect shareholding acquisitions under the Spanish tax scheme as new State aid, thereby protecting the legitimate expectations of companies that relied on the previous decisions.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 June 2025.Mainova AG v European Commission.Appeal – Competition – Concentrations – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market – Action brought by a third party – Admissibility – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Locus standi.Case C-484/23 P.
This is the judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) in Case C-484/23 P, *Mainova AG v Commission*, concerning an appeal against the General Court’s decision to dismiss Mainova’s action for annulment of a Commission decision declaring a concentration (Case M.8871 – RWE/E.ON Assets) compatible with the internal market. The core issue revolves around whether Mainova, as a third party, had the standing to bring an action against the Commission’s decision. The Court of Justice ultimately sets aside the General Court’s judgment in part but dismisses Mainova’s action as inadmissible.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** It outlines the context of the dispute, including the involved parties (RWE, E.ON, and Mainova), the nature of the concentration, and the administrative procedure before the Commission.
* **The action before the General Court and the judgment under appeal:** Summarizes Mainova’s pleas before the General Court and the General Court’s reasons for dismissing the action as inadmissible.
* **The procedure before the Court of Justice and the forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal:** Describes the appeal process and the requests made by Mainova and the Commission.
* **The appeal:** This section contains the Court’s analysis of Mainova’s grounds for appeal, focusing on the interpretation of Article 263 TFEU (locus standi), alleged breaches of the rule of law, and errors in assessing the impact of the concentration on Mainova’s market position.
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the interpretation of Article 263 TFEU and the criteria for determining when a third party is individually concerned by a Commission decision on a concentration. The Court reiterates that a third party must demonstrate that the decision affects them by virtue of attributes peculiar to them or circumstances that differentiate them from all other persons. The Court found that the General Court failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its finding that there were no specific circumstances relating to effects on Mainova’s market position. However, the Court of Justice ultimately concluded that Mainova had not demonstrated that its market position was substantially affected by the concentration, and therefore, it lacked standing to bring the action.
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 will be in effect from 2022 to 2031, with an average annual budget of NOK 20 million.
The document is structured as a concise notification of the decision. It includes key details such as the date of the decision (12 March 2025), the case number (93520), the decision number (020/25/COL), and the EFTA State involved (Norway). It specifies that the scheme applies to all regions within Norway and provides the legal basis as Section 5-14 of the Norwegian Tax Act. The notification also identifies the Ministry of Finance as the granting authority and provides a link to the authentic text of the decision on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website.
The most important provision is the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s approval of the tax exemption as a form of aid. This allows Norway to proceed with the amended employee share option scheme for start-up and growth companies without violating state aid regulations. The duration of the scheme (2022-2031) and the average annual budget (NOK 20 million) are also key parameters for understanding the scope and impact of the measure.
