Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050: Data Sharing Under the Digital Services Act
This regulation, supplementing the Digital Services Act (DSA), establishes the technical rules for very large online platforms and search engines (VLOPs/VLOSEs) to share data with vetted researchers. It aims to provide access to data for studying systemic risks within the EU and to evaluate the effectiveness of risk mitigation measures. The regulation details the procedures for researchers to request data, the obligations of data providers, and the role of Digital Services Coordinators in this process. Key elements include the creation of a DSA Data Access Portal managed by the Commission, the establishment of data catalogues by providers, and detailed requirements for formulating and processing reasoned requests. The regulation balances the interests of researchers, data providers, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2013: Terephthalic Acid Import Registration
This regulation directs customs authorities to register imports of terephthalic acid originating from the Republic of Korea and Mexico. This registration is a precautionary measure taken in anticipation of potential anti-dumping duties that may be applied retroactively. The regulation specifies that the registration will expire nine months after its entry into force. It does not impose anti-dumping duties itself, but instead sets up a mechanism to track imports, which could later be subject to such duties.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2051: Amendments to African Swine Fever Control Measures
This regulation modifies Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, which concerns special disease control measures for African swine fever (ASF). The amendments adjust the restricted zones (I, II, and III) in Croatia, Estonia, and Lithuania due to new ASF outbreaks. It also corrects errors in the entries for Italy. The goal is to adapt to the evolving epidemiological situation and prevent further spread of the disease within the EU. The regulation details specific geographic areas and dictates the implementation of special control measures in those zones.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981: Anti-Dumping Duty on Ceramic Tableware and Kitchenware
This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating from the People’s Republic of China. This follows an expiry review that determined that dumping would likely continue without these duties, harming EU industry. The regulation defines the products subject to the duty, sets duty rates for specific companies, and includes measures to prevent circumvention. It addresses how the “normal value” was constructed due to “significant distortions” in the Chinese economy and outlines requirements for invoices to benefit from individual duty rates.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2016: Correction of Language Versions Regarding Animal By-Products
This regulation corrects errors in the Dutch, German, and Slovenian language versions of Annex X to Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. These errors pertain to the treatments required for milk as animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption. The corrections aim to ensure accurate implementation of the original regulation.
General Court Judgment: Doors Bulgaria EOOD v EUIPO (EU Design Case)
This judgment concerns an EU design invalidity case. The General Court ruled an action brought by Doors Bulgaria EOOD inadmissible because the company failed to file the statement setting out the grounds of appeal within the statutory time limit. The court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
General Court Judgment: Staff Member v EESC (Alleged Harassment)
This judgment concerns a dispute between a staff member (CQ) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) regarding alleged harassment. The staff member sought annulment of the EESC’s decision rejecting his request for assistance following alleged mobbing and compensation for the moral damage suffered due to this decision. The Court dismissed the staff member’s action.
General Court Judgment: PMC Vlissingen Netherlands BV v European Commission (Dibutyltin Oxide Classification)
This judgment concerns PMC Vlissingen Netherlands BV’s challenge to the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/197, which classified dibutyltin oxide (DBTO) as a reproductive toxicant. The applicant argued that the Commission failed to consider all available information, unlawfully applied the read-across approach, lacked clear evidence of adverse effects on offspring development, and failed to conduct a public consultation on the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) opinion. The court dismissed all pleas and upheld the Commission’s decision.
General Court Judgment: Swissgrid AG v ACER (IN Platform)
This judgement concerns an appeal by Swissgrid AG, the Swiss electricity transmission system operator (TSO), against a decision by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) . The Board of Appeal had dismissed Swissgrid’s appeal against ACER’s decision amending the Implementation Framework for the European platform for the imbalance netting process (IN Platform). The General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that Swissgrid was directly and individually concerned by ACER’s decision.
General Court Judgment: Tender Procedure
The General Court rejected the applicant’s claim for annulment of the EIB’s decision concerning a tender procedure.
The Court found no manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality, or violation of the duty to state reasons.
The court upheld the EIB’s decision that the tender was abnormally low and that the explanations provided by the applicants were inadequate.
General Court Judgment: Swissgrid AG v ACER (aFRR Platform)
The General Court upheld ACER’s decision to dismiss Swissgrid’s appeal as inadmissible due to a lack of standing, finding that the ACER decision did not directly concern Swissgrid.
Swissgrid, as the Swiss TSO, had been involved in the Picasso project, which aimed to establish the aFRR Platform. However, due to the absence of a decision by the European Commission, Swissgrid’s participation in the platform was not authorized.
The court also rejected Swissgrid’s plea of illegality against the underlying EU regulation.
General Court Judgment: EU Trade Mark Dispute “COLORATURA”
The court dismissed Capella EOOD’s action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision, concerning the validity of a priority claim for the word mark “COLORATURA.”
The core issue revolves around the validity of a priority claim for the word mark “COLORATURA.” The applicant, Capella EOOD, sought to annul the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had rejected their priority claim based on an earlier German trade mark application.
General Court Judgment: Swissgrid AG v ACER (mFRR)
The General Court upheld ACER’s decision, finding that Swissgrid’s appeal was inadmissible because the ACER decision did not directly affect Swissgrid’s legal position. Swissgrid AG’s attempt to annul a decision by the Board of Appeal of ACER regarding Swissgrid’s non-participation in the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation (mFRR) was refused.
General Court Judgment: EU Design Invalidity Case Doors Bulgaria EOOD
The court emphasized that the statement of grounds for appeal must be filed within four months of the notification of the decision being appealed. The validity of a notification depends on its due transmission to the addressee, not on whether the addressee actually became aware of it. The General Court ruled on an action brought by Doors Bulgaria EOOD against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), concerning a decision by the Board of Appeal regarding the invalidation of a registered EU design for doors.
General Court Judgment: EU trademark “déjà-vu” owned by Norbert Schulz
The General Court annuls the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which had partially upheld the trademark for “perfumery products.”
Huda Beauty Ltd sought to have the trademark revoked due to non-use. The judgment emphasizes that proving genuine use requires demonstrating the place, duration, extent, and nature of the use of the trademark.
General Court Judgment: Family Allowances for EEAS Officials
The judgment addresses the structure of the EU Staff Regulations, particularly Annex VII (Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses) and Annex X (Special and Derogatory Provisions Applicable to Officials Serving in Third Countries). The officials contested the EEAS’s decisions to reject their claims for the allowance for dependent children under five years old.
The court confirms that this article applies exclusively to the school allowance for children aged five and older, not to the allowance for younger children.
Notice: Entry into Force of Air Services Agreement Between EU and Bangladesh
This notice announces the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services. The agreement officially came into effect on June 30, 2025, following the completion of the necessary notifications by both parties.
Decision No 4/2025: Amending Annex I to EU-Ghana VPA
Decision No 4/2025 of the Joint Monitoring and Review Mechanism (JMRM) amends Annex I to the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the EU and Ghana, focusing on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) in timber products. The decision updates the Harmonized System (HS) codes for timber and wood products covered by the FLEGT Licensing Scheme to align with amendments made by the World Customs Organization.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050 of 1 July 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down the technical conditions and procedures under which providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines are to share data with vetted researchers
This is an analysis of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2050.
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation supplements Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act – DSA) by specifying the technical conditions and procedures for providers of very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) to share data with vetted researchers. It aims to facilitate access to data for studying systemic risks in the EU and assessing the effectiveness of risk mitigation measures, ensuring a consistent, secure, and efficient process across all Digital Services Coordinators. The regulation also seeks to balance the interests of researchers, data providers, and the protection of fundamental rights.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured into five chapters and an annex, covering general provisions, information and contact obligations, requirements for formulating and processing reasoned requests, conditions for providing data to vetted researchers, and final provisions.
* **Chapter I (General Provisions):** Defines the subject matter and key terms like ‘data access application,’ ‘data access process,’ ‘applicant researcher,’ ‘principal researcher,’ ‘data provider,’ ‘reasoned request,’ ‘amendment request,’ and ‘secure processing environment.’
* **Chapter II (Information and Contact Obligations):** Establishes the DSA data access portal, managed by the Commission, to streamline the data access process. It outlines the roles and responsibilities for processing personal data within the portal, emphasizing data protection. It also mandates the establishment of dedicated points of contact by Digital Services Coordinators and data providers to provide information and support.
* **Chapter III (Requirements for Formulating and Processing of Reasoned Requests):** Sets out the procedures and prerequisites for Digital Services Coordinators to formulate reasoned requests for data access. It details the elements to be considered, such as researcher affiliation, independence from commercial interests, funding information, data description, necessity and proportionality of data access, and risk mitigation measures. It also specifies the content of a reasoned request and the procedures for examining amendment requests and mediation.
* **Chapter IV (Conditions for Providing the Data Requested to Vetted Researchers):** Outlines the conditions for data sharing and documentation, including notifications to the Digital Services Coordinator, provision of metadata and documentation to researchers, and limitations on imposing data management requirements or restrictions on analytical tools.
* **Chapter V (Final Provisions):** Specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation.
* **Annex:** Defines the responsibilities of the Commission as a processor for data processing activities conducted in the context of the DSA data access portal.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **DSA Data Access Portal:** The establishment and use of this portal are central to the regulation. Researchers, data providers, and Digital Services Coordinators will need to create accounts and use the portal for managing the data access process, exchanging information, and accessing relevant documentation.
* **Data Catalogues:** Data providers are required to create and maintain DSA data catalogues, describing available data assets, their structure, and metadata. These catalogues should be easily accessible on the data providers’ online interfaces and regularly updated to reflect new and evolving systemic risks.
* **Reasoned Requests:** The process for formulating and processing reasoned requests is critical. Digital Services Coordinators must carefully assess data access applications, taking into account various factors such as researcher affiliation, independence, funding, data description, and risk mitigation measures. The content of the reasoned request must adhere to the specified requirements.
* **Access Modalities:** The determination of appropriate access modalities is crucial for balancing data security, confidentiality, and the attainment of research objectives. Digital Services Coordinators must consider the sensitivity of the data, potential risks, and the technical, legal, and organizational measures needed to mitigate those risks.
* **Amendment Requests and Mediation:** The regulation provides a mechanism for data providers to submit amendment requests if they believe the reasoned request poses significant risks or is impossible to fulfill. Mediation is also предусмотрена as a means of resolving disputes between data providers and Digital Services Coordinators.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2013 of 8 October 2025 making imports of terephthalic acid originating in the Republic of Korea and Mexico subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2013 concerns the registration of imports of terephthalic acid originating in the Republic of Korea and Mexico. The regulation is introduced because of a possible imposition of anti-dumping duties, which might be applied retroactively.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration, followed by two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register imports of the specified terephthalic acid from the Republic of Korea and Mexico. It also states that the registration will expire nine months after the regulation’s entry into force. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation comes into effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not introduce anti-dumping duties themselves but sets up a mechanism to track imports in case such duties are imposed later.
The most important provision is Article 1, which mandates the registration of specific terephthalic acid imports from the Republic of Korea and Mexico. This means that importers of this product from these countries should be aware that any future anti-dumping duties could potentially be applied retroactively to their imports during the registration period.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2051 of 6 October 2025 correcting and amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 laying down special disease control measures for African swine fever
Here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2051:
1. **Essence of the Act:** This regulation corrects and amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, which lays down special disease control measures for African swine fever (ASF). The amendments adjust the restricted zones (I, II, and III) in various Member States based on recent ASF outbreaks and corrections of previous errors. The goal is to manage and prevent the further spread of the disease within the European Union.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The regulation focuses on amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594.
* **Corrections:** It addresses errors in the entries for Italy in Parts I, II, and III of Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, as previously amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1924.
* **Amendments:** It updates the restricted zones in Croatia, Estonia, and Lithuania due to new outbreaks of ASF. This involves reclassifying certain areas into higher-risk zones (e.g., from Zone I to Zone III) and redefining zone boundaries.
* The amendments are based on the epidemiological situation, the overall risk level, and scientific principles for zoning, following guidelines and international standards.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Geographic Restrictions:** The most important aspect is the specific geographic areas listed in Annex I as restricted zones. These zones dictate where special disease control measures apply.
* **Obligations for Member States:** Member States with areas listed in Annex I must implement the special disease control measures as outlined in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594.
* **Updates to Zones:** The regulation reflects the dynamic nature of ASF outbreaks, so it’s crucial to consult the latest version of Annex I to determine the current restricted zones.
* **Territorial Continuity:** The regulation emphasizes maintaining territorial continuity when defining restricted zones, ensuring that measures are consistently applied across affected areas.
* **Date of Application:** The corrections related to Italy are applied retroactively from September 23, 2025, while the rest of the regulation takes effect the day after its publication.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981 of 7 October 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This decision follows an expiry review, meaning the EU investigated whether the existing anti-dumping measures should continue. The regulation concludes that without these duties, dumping (selling goods below cost) would likely continue, harming the EU industry.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Background:** The regulation references previous investigations and measures on ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China, including amendments to product scope and anti-circumvention measures.
* **Expiry Review:** It details the process of the expiry review, including the request, initiation, and investigation period.
* **Interested Parties:** It discusses the participation of various parties like Union producers, exporting producers in China, importers, and the Chinese government. Sampling methods for Union producers and exporting producers are explained.
* **Product Definition:** The regulation defines the specific ceramic products subject to the duty, excluding certain items like spice mills and pizza stones.
* **Dumping Determination:** A significant portion of the regulation focuses on determining “normal value” (the price in the exporting country) and comparing it to the export price. Due to “significant distortions” in the Chinese economy, the normal value was constructed based on costs in an appropriate representative country (Turkey).
* **Injury Analysis:** The regulation assesses the economic state of the EU ceramic tableware and kitchenware industry, considering factors like production, sales, market share, employment, and profitability. It concludes that the EU industry has suffered material injury.
* **Causation:** It examines whether the dumped imports from China caused the injury to the EU industry, considering other potential factors like imports from other countries and export performance of the EU industry.
* **Union Interest:** The regulation assesses whether maintaining the anti-dumping measures is in the overall interest of the EU, considering the interests of the EU industry, importers, and consumers.
* **Anti-Dumping Measures:** The regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties, specifying the duty rates for individual companies and a residual rate for all other companies. It includes provisions to prevent circumvention of the duties.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Duty Rates:** The regulation specifies the exact anti-dumping duty rates for named Chinese companies and a general rate for all others. Importers need to know these rates to calculate import costs.
* **Invoice Requirements:** To benefit from individual duty rates, importers must present specific commercial invoices with declarations from the manufacturer. The exact wording of these declarations is provided in Article 1(4) of the regulation.
* **New Exporter Provision:** Companies not exporting to the EU during the original investigation period can request to be subject to a lower duty rate if they meet certain conditions.
* **Product Scope:** Importers must carefully check the product definition (Article 1(1)) to ensure their goods are covered by the anti-dumping duty. The regulation provides CN and TARIC codes for clarity.
* **Circumvention:** The regulation includes measures to prevent circumvention of the duties.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2016 of 8 October 2025 correcting certain language versions of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2016 serves to correct errors found in specific language versions (Dutch, German, and Slovenian) of Annex X to Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. These errors pertain to the treatments required for milk within the context of animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption. The identified errors in the original language versions altered the intended meaning of the provisions.
The Regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the correction, followed by two articles. Article 1 stipulates the specific corrections to be made to the Dutch, German, and Slovenian language versions of Annex X, Chapter II, Section 4, Part I, points B(1.2) and B(1.4) of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Article 2 states that the Regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms its binding and directly applicable nature in all Member States.
The most important aspect of this regulation is the correction of specific language versions of the original regulation to ensure accurate implementation of the rules concerning the treatment of milk as animal by-product. Businesses and individuals operating within the animal by-products sector in the affected language regions should take note of these corrections to ensure compliance.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2025.Doors Bulgaria EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing doors – Late filing of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal – Calculation of time limits – Action inadmissible – Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 – Restitutio in integrum – Failure to pay the fee – Article 67(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 – Related to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity – Article 91(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.Case T-585/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU design invalidity case. The court ruled the action brought by Doors Bulgaria EOOD inadmissible because the company failed to file the statement setting out the grounds of appeal within the statutory time limit. The court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Top Ten EOOD filed for a declaration of invalidity against Doors Bulgaria’s EU design for doors. The Invalidity Division declared the design invalid. Doors Bulgaria appealed, but the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal as inadmissible due to the late filing of the statement of grounds.
* **Forms of order sought:** Doors Bulgaria requested the court to annul the Board of Appeal’s decision and either stay the proceedings, declare the appeal admissible, or order EUIPO to rule on the merits of the appeal.
* **Law:** The court addresses the jurisdiction and the substance of the case, structured by pleas in law.
* **Jurisdiction of the General Court:** The court clarifies it cannot issue directions to EUIPO.
* **Substance:** The court examines four pleas raised by Doors Bulgaria:
1. Infringement of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 (late filing): The court found that the statement of grounds was indeed filed late, and the notification was valid.
2. Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002 (restitutio in integrum): The court stated that since Doors Bulgaria didn’t pay the fee for restitutio in integrum, no such application was validly submitted.
3. Incorrect assessment of the merits of the appeal: The court dismissed this plea as ineffective because the Board of Appeal only ruled on admissibility, not the merits.
4. Infringement of Article 91(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 (stay of proceedings due to a counterclaim): The court found that while a counterclaim was filed in Bulgaria before the EUIPO application, EUIPO was initially informed of an incorrect date, and the correct information arrived after the deadline for filing the appeal grounds.
* **Costs:** Each party bears its own costs.
The most important provision for practical use is the interpretation and application of **Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002**, concerning the strict deadlines for filing appeals in EU design cases. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to these deadlines and the validity of electronic notifications by EUIPO. The judgment also clarifies the requirements for requesting restitutio in integrum under **Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002**, specifically the need to pay the relevant fee.
Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 8 octobre 2025.#CQ contre Comité économique et social européen.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Harcèlement moral – Enquête administrative – Article 12 bis du statut – Demande d’assistance – Rejet de la demande – Article 24 du statut – Obligation de motivation – Impartialité – Droit d’être entendu – Durée de la procédure administrative – Délai raisonnable – Erreur d’appréciation – Responsabilité – Préjudice moral.#Affaire T-117/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a case between a staff member (CQ) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) concerning alleged harassment. The staff member sought annulment of the EESC’s decision rejecting his request for assistance following alleged mobbing and compensation for the moral damage suffered due to this decision. The Court dismissed the staff member’s action.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background of the Dispute:** This section outlines the facts that led to the legal action, including the staff member’s employment history, his request for assistance based on alleged mobbing by his superior, the EESC’s internal investigation, and the subsequent rejection of his claims.
2. **Conclusions of the Parties:** This section summarizes what the staff member and the EESC are asking the Court to do.
3. **Law:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court analyzes the legal arguments.
* **Claims for Annulment:** The staff member raised several pleas for the annulment of the EESC’s decision, which the Court addresses in turn:
* *Violation of the obligation to state reasons:* The staff member argued that the EESC did not adequately explain its decision. The Court rejected this, finding that the EESC’s reasoning was clear enough.
* *Violation of procedural guarantees:* The staff member claimed violations of impartiality, the right to be heard, and the right to a decision within a reasonable time. The Court rejected each of these claims.
* *Violation of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the duty of care:* The staff member argued that the EESC failed to properly investigate his claims. The Court found that the EESC had acted within its discretion.
* *Errors of assessment:* The staff member argued that the EESC incorrectly assessed the facts regarding the definition of mobbing. The Court rejected this, finding that the EESC’s assessment was reasonable.
* **Claims for Compensation:** Since the Court rejected the claims for annulment, it also rejected the claims for compensation for moral damages.
4. **Costs:** The Court ordered the staff member to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act are:
* The Court confirms that the EESC provided sufficient reasoning for its decision to reject the staff member’s request for assistance.
* The Court confirms that the EESC respected the staff member’s procedural rights, including impartiality, the right to be heard, and the right to a decision within a reasonable time.
* The Court confirms that the EESC acted within its discretion in investigating the staff member’s claims.
* The Court confirms that the EESC did not err in its assessment of the facts regarding the definition of mobbing.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are the Court’s findings regarding the EESC’s compliance with procedural rights and its assessment of the facts regarding the definition of mobbing. These findings provide guidance on how EU institutions should handle similar cases in the future.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2025.PMC Vlissingen Netherlands BV v European Commission.Environment and protection of human health – Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 – Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/197 – Classification and labelling of dibutyltin oxide – Criteria for classification of a substance in the hazard class reproductive toxicity, Category 1B – Absence of public consultation on the opinion of ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment – No obligation to review – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Read-across – Maternal toxicity – Manifest error of assessment.Case T-169/24.
This is an analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2025 in Case T-169/24, PMC Vlissingen Netherlands BV v European Commission. The case concerns the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/197, specifically regarding the classification and labelling of dibutyltin oxide (DBTO) as a reproductive toxicant, Category 1B, under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (the CLP Regulation). The applicant, PMC Vlissingen Netherlands BV, challenges the Commission’s decision, arguing that it failed to consider all available information, unlawfully applied the read-across approach, lacked clear evidence of adverse effects on offspring development, and failed to conduct a public consultation on the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) opinion.
The judgment is structured around four pleas raised by the applicant. The first plea concerns the failure to consider all available information on DBTO, particularly a combined repeated dose toxicity study (TG 422 study). The second plea challenges the application of the read-across approach, arguing it was inappropriate given the availability of data on DBTO itself and that the scientific justification for read-across between DBTO and other substances was flawed. The third plea asserts that there was a lack of clear evidence that DBTO has adverse effects on the development of offspring, especially in the absence of significant maternal toxicity. The fourth plea alleges the absence of public consultation on the RAC opinion, arguing that stakeholders should have had the opportunity to comment specifically on the RAC’s assessment.
The court dismisses all four pleas, upholding the Commission’s decision. It finds that the Commission and ECHA did consider the TG 422 study, that the read-across approach was justified, that there was sufficient evidence of developmental toxicity independent of maternal toxicity, and that the public consultation requirements were met. The court emphasizes the broad discretion afforded to the Commission in assessing complex scientific and technical data.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the assessment of scientific evidence, the application of the read-across approach, and the procedural requirements for public consultation. The court’s judgment clarifies the scope of the Commission’s discretion in these areas and sets a high bar for challenging classification decisions based on scientific grounds.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 October 2025.Swissgrid AG v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.Energy – Internal market for electricity – Guideline on electricity balancing – Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 – European platform for the imbalance netting process – Non-participation of the Swiss Transmission System Operator – ACER decision amending the Implementation Framework for the Platform – Appeal brought before the ACER Board of Appeal – Specific conditions and arrangements for appeals – Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 – Inadmissibility for lack of standing to bring proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Direct and individual concern.Case T-556/23.
This is an analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 October 2025 in Case T-556/23, Swissgrid AG v ACER.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment concerns an appeal by Swissgrid AG, the Swiss electricity transmission system operator (TSO), against a decision by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). The Board of Appeal had dismissed Swissgrid’s appeal against ACER’s decision amending the Implementation Framework for the European platform for the imbalance netting process (IN Platform), deeming it inadmissible due to a lack of standing. The General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that Swissgrid was directly and individually concerned by ACER’s decision.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It outlines the background to the dispute, including Swissgrid’s participation in the International Grid Control Cooperation (IGCC) and the establishment of the IN Platform under Regulation (EU) 2017/2195.
* It details ACER’s decision to amend the Implementation Framework, specifically redefining “member TSO” in a way that appeared to exclude Swissgrid.
* It presents the forms of order sought by Swissgrid (annulment of the Board of Appeal’s decision) and the arguments of ACER and the European Commission (dismissal of the action).
* It analyzes Swissgrid’s pleas, which include:
* An error of law in interpreting Regulation 2017/2195.
* An error of assessment in applying Article 28(1) of Regulation 2019/942 (the ACER Regulation).
* A plea of illegality against Regulation 2017/2195 (raised in the alternative).
* The Court rejects the first plea, finding that Regulation 2017/2195 does not, in principle, allow for the participation of non-EU TSOs in the IN Platform, except under specific conditions not applicable in this case.
* The Court upholds the second plea, finding that the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that ACER’s decision did not directly and individually concern Swissgrid. The Court emphasizes that Swissgrid’s existing contractual rights and its unique position as a TSO geographically integrated with the EU energy market were not properly considered.
* The Court annuls the Board of Appeal’s decision and orders ACER to pay the costs.
**Main Provisions Important for Use:**
The most important provisions of the judgment are those relating to the admissibility of appeals before the ACER Board of Appeal, specifically:
* **Article 28(1) of Regulation 2019/942:** This article governs who can appeal ACER decisions. The judgment clarifies that this provision must be interpreted in light of the case law on Article 263 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which concerns actions for annulment before the EU Courts.
* **The concepts of “direct concern” and “individual concern”:** The judgment provides a detailed analysis of these concepts, which are crucial for determining whether a party has standing to bring an appeal. The Court emphasizes that an act must directly affect the legal situation of the applicant and leave no discretion to its addressees. Furthermore, the applicant must be affected by the act by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons.
* **The relevance of contractual rights:** The judgment highlights that existing contractual rights can be a relevant factor in determining whether an act is of direct and individual concern to an applicant.
* **The importance of factual context:** The judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific factual context of a case, including the applicant’s historical participation in relevant projects and its unique geographical situation.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 October 2025.NTT Data Belgique and Others v European Investment Bank.Public supply contracts – Tendering procedure – IT Consultancy for EIB-specific Applications – Rejection of a tenderer’s bid – Abnormally low tender – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality.Case T-161/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over a public supply contract. The court rejected the application for annulment of the EIB’s decision to reject the applicants’ tender, finding no manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality, or violation of the duty to state reasons. The court upheld the EIB’s decision that the tender was abnormally low and that the explanations provided by the applicants were inadequate.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background of the dispute, outlining the call for tenders, the submission of the consortium’s tender, the EIB’s request for clarifications, and the subsequent rejection of the tender. It then details the forms of order sought by the applicants and the EIB. The main body of the judgment is divided into sections addressing preliminary observations and the substance of the case. The preliminary observations clarify the legal framework, referencing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the EIB Procurement Guide, and Directive 2014/24/EU, particularly Article 69 concerning abnormally low tenders. The substance section is organized around three pleas raised by the applicants: a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality, and infringement of the duty to state reasons and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The court systematically addresses and rejects each of these pleas, providing detailed reasoning for its conclusions. Finally, the judgment concludes with a decision on costs, ordering the applicants to pay the expenses of the proceedings.
The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the assessment of abnormally low tenders and the obligation to state reasons. The court emphasizes that contracting authorities have broad discretion in determining whether a tender is abnormally low, provided that the method used is objective and non-discriminatory. The court also clarifies the extent of the obligation to state reasons, requiring the contracting authority to inform the unsuccessful tenderer of the broad outlines of its analysis but not necessarily to provide a specific and detailed analysis of every aspect of the tender.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 October 2025.Swissgrid AG v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.Energy – Internal market for electricity – Guideline on electricity balancing – Article 1(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 – European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation – Non-participation of the Swiss Transmission System Operator – Appeal brought before the ACER Board of Appeal – Specific conditions and arrangements for appeals – Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 – Inadmissibility for lack of standing to bring proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Lack of direct concern – Plea of illegality.Case T-558/23.
Here is a detailed description of the judgment provided:
1. **Essence of the Act:**
This judgment concerns a dispute between Swissgrid AG, the Swiss electricity transmission system operator, and the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) regarding Swissgrid’s non-participation in the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with automatic activation (aFRR Platform). The General Court upheld ACER’s decision to dismiss Swissgrid’s appeal as inadmissible due to a lack of standing, finding that the ACER decision did not directly concern Swissgrid. The court also rejected Swissgrid’s plea of illegality against the underlying EU regulation.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses Swissgrid’s appeal against ACER’s decision, which itself dismissed Swissgrid’s appeal against an earlier ACER decision amending the Implementation Framework for the aFRR Platform. The key issues revolve around the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195, which establishes a guideline on electricity balancing.
* **Background:** Swissgrid, as the Swiss TSO, had been involved in the Picasso project, which aimed to establish the aFRR Platform. However, due to the absence of a decision by the European Commission under Article 1(7) of Regulation 2017/2195, Swissgrid’s participation in the platform was not authorized.
* **ACER Decision:** ACER’s Decision 15/2022 amended the definition of “member TSO” in the Implementation Framework, specifying that it applies to TSOs to which Regulation 2017/2195 applies.
* **Board of Appeal Decision:** The ACER Board of Appeal dismissed Swissgrid’s appeal against Decision 15/2022, stating that it did not affect Swissgrid’s legal position.
* **General Court Judgment:** The General Court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision, rejecting Swissgrid’s pleas of error of law and error of assessment. It also rejected Swissgrid’s plea of illegality against Regulation 2017/2195.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the interpretation of Article 1(6) and (7) of Regulation 2017/2195:
* **Article 1(6):** Sets out the conditions under which Swiss TSOs may be authorized to participate in European platforms for the exchange of standard products for balancing energy.
* **Article 1(7):** Specifies that the Commission decides on Switzerland’s participation based on an opinion from ACER and all TSOs.
The judgment clarifies that, in the absence of a Commission decision under Article 1(7), Swissgrid is not entitled to participate in the aFRR Platform. The judgment also emphasizes that it is for the Commission, not ACER or the Board of Appeal, to examine whether the conditions for Swiss participation are satisfied.
The General Court also rejected Swissgrid’s plea of illegality against Regulation 2017/2195, finding that the Commission did not exceed its implementing powers and that the regulation is not contrary to various provisions of EU law and international agreements.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 October 2025.Capella EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark COLORATURA – Earlier national word mark COLORATURA – Priority claim – Concept of ‘first application’ – Article 34(1) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Legal certainty – Reasonable time.Case T-562/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The core issue revolves around the validity of a priority claim for the word mark “COLORATURA.” The applicant, Capella EOOD, sought to annul the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had rejected their priority claim based on an earlier German trade mark application. The court ultimately dismissed Capella EOOD’s action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trade mark applications, opposition proceedings, and the contested decision. It then details the forms of order sought by the applicant, EUIPO, and the intervener (Richemont International SA). The main body of the judgment addresses the five pleas in law raised by the applicant: infringement of primary law, infringement of the right of priority, failure to state reasons, breach of the principle of good faith, and infringement of Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court systematically addresses each plea, ultimately dismissing them all. Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs, ordering the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the intervener, while EUIPO bears its own costs.
The most important provisions of the act relate to the interpretation and application of Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which governs the right of priority in EU trade mark law. The court clarifies the concept of “first application” and confirms that EUIPO can examine the validity of a priority claim during opposition proceedings. The judgment also emphasizes that a subsequent trade mark application can only be considered a “first application” under specific conditions outlined in Article 34(4), which were not met in this case. The court also addresses the applicant’s claim regarding the excessive length of the proceedings, clarifying that a breach of the principle of reasonable time only justifies annulment if it affected the applicant’s rights of defence and the outcome of the dispute.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 October 2025.Swissgrid AG v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.Energy – Internal market for electricity – Guideline on electricity balancing – Article 1(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2195 – European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation – Non-participation of the Swiss Transmission System Operator – Appeal brought before the ACER Board of Appeal – Specific conditions and arrangements for appeals – Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2019/942 – Inadmissibility for lack of standing to bring proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Lack of direct concern – Plea of illegality.Case T-557/23.
Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment regarding Swissgrid AG and ACER:
1. **Essence of the Act:** This judgment concerns Swissgrid AG’s attempt to annul a decision by the Board of Appeal of ACER regarding Swissgrid’s non-participation in the European platform for the exchange of balancing energy from frequency restoration reserves with manual activation (mFRR). The General Court upheld ACER’s decision, finding that Swissgrid’s appeal was inadmissible because the ACER decision did not directly affect Swissgrid’s legal position. The court clarified the conditions under which Swiss TSOs can participate in such platforms and affirmed the Commission’s role in making such decisions.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses Swissgrid’s appeal against ACER’s decision, which itself dismissed Swissgrid’s appeal against an earlier ACER decision amending the Implementation Framework for the mFRR platform.
* It refers to Regulation (EU) 2017/2195, which establishes a guideline on electricity balancing and provides for the creation of European platforms for exchanging balancing energy.
* It discusses the definition of “member TSO” and “participating TSO” within the context of the mFRR platform.
* The court examines Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2019/942, which governs appeals against ACER decisions, and its alignment with Article 263 TFEU regarding standing to bring proceedings.
* The judgment analyzes whether the ACER decision directly concerned Swissgrid and brought about a distinct change in its legal position.
* It also considers Swissgrid’s plea of illegality against Regulation 2017/2195, arguing that it unlawfully prevents Swiss participation in the mFRR platform.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Conditions for Swiss TSO Participation:** The judgment confirms that Swiss TSOs can only participate in European platforms for balancing energy exchange if their national law implements key EU electricity market legislation, there’s an intergovernmental agreement, or if excluding Switzerland endangers regional system security.
* **Commission’s Decision-Making Power:** The Commission has the authority to decide on Swiss participation, based on ACER and TSO opinions. This decision must ensure consistency between the rights/responsibilities of Swiss and EU TSOs.
* **Right to Appeal:** The judgment clarifies the criteria for appealing ACER decisions, emphasizing that the decision must directly affect the legal position of the party seeking to appeal.
* **Plea of Illegality:** The court outlines the conditions under which a party can challenge the legality of an EU regulation, including demonstrating that the regulation affects their rights or creates obligations for them.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2025.Doors Bulgaria EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing doors – Late filing of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal before the Board of Appeal – Calculation of time limits – Action inadmissible – Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 – Restitutio in integrum – Failure to pay the fee – Article 67(3) of Regulation No 6/2002.Case T-586/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU design invalidity case. The court ruled on an action brought by Doors Bulgaria EOOD against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), concerning a decision by the Board of Appeal regarding the invalidation of a registered EU design for doors. The core issue was whether the statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the statutory time limit.
The judgment is structured as follows: It starts with the background of the dispute, detailing the initial application for invalidity, the decision by the Invalidity Division, and the subsequent appeal. It then outlines the forms of order sought by the applicant (Doors Bulgaria) and the responses from EUIPO and the intervener (Top Ten EOOD). The judgment proceeds to address the jurisdiction of the General Court and then delves into the substance of the case, structured around three pleas raised by the applicant: (i) infringement of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 (the regulation on EU designs) concerning the time limit for filing the appeal grounds; (ii) infringement of Article 67 of the same regulation, related to restitutio in integrum (restoration to prior status); and (iii) an incorrect assessment of the merits of the appeal against the Invalidity Division’s decision. Finally, the judgment concludes with a ruling on costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the interpretation and application of Article 57 of Regulation No 6/2002 and related implementing regulations concerning the time limits for appeal. The court emphasizes that the statement of grounds for appeal must be filed within four months of the notification of the decision being appealed. It also clarifies that the validity of a notification depends on its due transmission to the addressee, not on whether the addressee actually became aware of it. The judgment also addresses the issue of restitutio in integrum, noting that an application for such remedy is only deemed filed upon payment of the relevant fee.
Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 8 octobre 2025.#Huda Beauty Ltd contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de déchéance – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale déjà-vu – Usage sérieux de la marque – Preuve de l’usage sérieux – Durée de l’usage – Article 58, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-333/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by Huda Beauty Ltd against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the EU trademark “déjà-vu” owned by Norbert Schulz, specifically for “perfumery products” in Class 3. Huda Beauty sought to have the trademark revoked due to non-use.
The structure of the judgment includes a summary of the dispute, the background of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the Court. The key issue is whether Norbert Schulz provided sufficient evidence of genuine use of the “déjà-vu” trademark for perfumery products during the relevant five-year period. The General Court annuls the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which had partially upheld the trademark for “perfumery products.”
The most important provision is Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which states that a trademark can be revoked if it has not been genuinely used for five years. The Court found that the Board of Appeal failed to properly assess the duration of the trademark’s use. The judgment emphasizes that proving genuine use requires demonstrating the place, duration, extent, and nature of the use of the trademark. Since the Board of Appeal did not make an independent assessment of the duration of use, the Court annulled the decision.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 8 octobre 2025.#FW e.a. contre Service européen pour l’action extérieure.#Fonction publique – Personnel du SEAE – Rémunération – Allocations familiales – Allocation scolaire – Article 15 de l’annexe X du statut – Refus de rembourser les frais de crèche et de scolarité – Erreur de droit – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Principe de bonne administration – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-542/24.
Here is a description of the provisions of the act:
This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between officials and agents of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the EEAS itself concerning family allowances, specifically the school allowance. The officials contested the EEAS’s decisions to reject their claims for the allowance for dependent children under five years old, seeking reimbursement of childcare and school fees.
The judgment addresses the structure of the EU Staff Regulations, particularly Annex VII (Remuneration and Reimbursement of Expenses) and Annex X (Special and Derogatory Provisions Applicable to Officials Serving in Third Countries). It clarifies that Article 15 of Annex X, which provides for a school allowance covering actual schooling costs for officials serving in third countries, applies only to children aged five and older. The Court dismisses the applicants’ arguments that this provision should also apply to children under five, finding no legal basis for such an interpretation.
The most important provision of the act is the interpretation of Article 15 of Annex X of the Staff Regulations. The court confirms that this article applies exclusively to the school allowance for children aged five and older, not to the allowance for younger children. This interpretation affects the financial benefits available to EU officials serving in third countries with young children, as it limits the possibility of reimbursement for childcare and early education expenses beyond the fixed allowance provided for in Article 3(2) of Annex VII.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services
This notice announces the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh on certain aspects of air services. The agreement aims to update and potentially expand the existing framework for air services between the EU and Bangladesh. It officially came into effect on June 30, 2025, following the completion of the necessary notifications by both parties.
The notice itself is brief, simply stating the fact of the agreement’s entry into force and referencing the Official Journal where the full text of the agreement can be found (OJ L, 2024/1699). The referenced agreement likely covers various aspects of air services, such as traffic rights, safety standards, and cooperative arrangements between airlines of the EU and Bangladesh. Without the full text of the agreement, it’s impossible to detail specific changes compared to previous arrangements, but such agreements typically aim to liberalize air transport, promote competition, and ensure safety and security.
The most important provision of this notice is the date of entry into force: June 30, 2025. This date marks the point from which the terms of the Agreement are legally binding on both the EU and Bangladesh. Airlines, aviation authorities, and travelers should be aware of this date, as it signifies the beginning of the new regulatory framework for air services between these regions.
Decision No 4 of the Joint Monitoring and Review Mechanism set up by the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Ghana on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade in timber products into the Community as regards amendments to its Annex I [2025/1990]
Decision No 4/2025 of the Joint Monitoring and Review Mechanism (JMRM) amends Annex I to the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the EU and Ghana, focusing on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) in timber products. The decision updates the Harmonized System (HS) codes for timber and wood products covered by the FLEGT Licensing Scheme to align with amendments made by the World Customs Organization. This ensures that the product coverage of the VPA reflects the latest international standards for commodity classification. The updated list of products, identified by their HS codes, is crucial for the proper implementation and monitoring of the FLEGT licensing scheme between the EU and Ghana.
The act consists of a preamble, three articles, and an annex. The preamble outlines the legal basis and reasons for the decision, referencing the VPA between the EU and Ghana, previous amendments, and the need to update HS codes. Article 1 replaces Annex I of the Agreement with the new annex attached to the decision. Article 2 specifies the authentic languages of the decision and establishes the English text as prevailing in case of interpretation divergences. Article 3 sets the entry into force date as 1 January 2025. The annex provides an updated list of timber and wood products covered under the VPA, identified by their HS codes and descriptions. Compared to previous versions, the main change is the alignment of HS codes with the latest amendments to the international convention on the harmonized commodity description and coding system.
The most important provision of this decision is the updated Annex I, which lists the timber and wood products covered under the VPA, identified by their HS codes. This list is essential for customs officials, timber traders, and other stakeholders involved in the FLEGT licensing scheme. The correct classification of timber products using these HS codes is crucial for determining whether a FLEGT license is required for import into the EU.
