Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2195
This regulation formally cancels the registration of ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). Essentially, this means the product can no longer be marketed under this protected name within the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2186
This regulation renews the authorization of propionic acid, sodium propionate, and ammonium propionate as feed additives for all terrestrial animal species. The substances are authorized until November 19, 2035. If you use these additives, pay close attention to the specified conditions, including maximum content levels and storage requirements, but, importantly, you must also establish appropriate operational procedures and use personal protective equipment if the risks to health cannot be eliminated.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2176
This act renews the authorization for three feed additives: Pediococcus acidilactici NCIMB 30005, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627, which are used in all animal species. Like the propionic acid regulation, this one also emphasizes users of additives to establish operational procedures and take appropriate measures to eliminate all risks, and, where this is not possible, to use personal protective equipment.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2173
This regulation simplifies proof of origin requirements for certain poultry tariff rate quotas. Operators can now use supply contracts instead of certificates of origin for tariff quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420. This reverts to pre-June 2021 practices. Additionally, digital certificates of origin no longer need to include the import license serial number.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2183
This act renews the authorization of L-valine as a feed additive for all animal species. When used in ruminants, L-valine must be rumen protected. The labelling of the additive and premixtures must indicate that supplementation with L-valine should consider all essential and conditionally essential amino acids to avoid imbalances.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2175
This act renews the authorization of *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* CECT 4528 as a silage additive for all animal species. Operators must establish procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks and use protective equipment to reduce them where they cannot be eliminated.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2171
This regulation renews the authorization for calcium D-pantothenate and D-panthenol (vitamin B5) as feed additives. For calcium D-pantothenate, users must have operational procedures and organizational measures, and they should use personal breathing equipment. For D-Panthenol, it can only be used via drinking water and personal skin, eye, and breathing protection should be used.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 2025/… amending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011
This amendment introduces harmonized import requirements for used cooking oil. This regulation requires that used cooking oil must originate from approved or registered establishments in third countries and be transported and monitored according to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1666 and it must be properly filtered. Importers must also provide a declaration at the border control post.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Fugro NV vs Council
The Court dismissed Fugro’s appeal against Directive (EU) 2022/2523, concerning the global minimum level of taxation. The Court decided that Fugro lacked the standing to bring the action because the Directive did not individually concern it.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Consumer credit agreements for vehicle purchases
This judgment clarifies several aspects of Directive 2008/48/EC, which sets out rules for consumer credit agreements. This includes requirements on calculating compensation for vehicle depreciation, clarification of the withdrawal period, and the creditor’s rights for interest payments.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC
The CJEU has clarified that a dismissal cannot be valid if the employer failed to properly notify the competent public authority about the planned collective redundancies. A dismissal cannot take effect before a 30-day period has passed, and an employer cannot rectify a failure to notify after the dismissal has already been issued.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Collective Redundancies Directive (98/59/EC)
The CJEU has clarified the requirements for notifying projected collective redundancies, requiring complete and accurate notifications to the public authority and additional measures to ensure employers comply with notification obligations. Rectification after dismissal is insufficient.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Working time and rest periods for public prosecutors
The CJEU determined that public prosecutors are considered “workers” under EU law and are therefore protected by directives on worker safety and health. The CJEU has also classified on-call time as “working time” if the restrictions placed on the prosecutor significantly limit their ability to use that time for personal interests.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Customs Valuation and Proofs of Origin
The CJEU clarified the customs value of goods should be determined at the time they are placed in a customs warehouse, and has clarified when goods can be deemed to be ‘exported’ to the EU. The Court also confirmed that customs authorities are not obligated to accept proofs of origin submitted after their expiration date, even if the same certificate was previously accepted for other goods under the same quota.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Competition law and criminal law, protection of leniency statements
The CJEU clarified the relationship between competition law and criminal law, with specific regard to leniency applications. Access to leniency statements and settlement submissions is restricted to parties in the relevant competition proceedings, for the purpose of exercising their defense rights. This protection does not extend to documents and information provided to explain or prove the content of leniency statements.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Jurisdiction agreements
The CJEU clarified the scope of the phrase “null and void as to its substantive validity” within the context of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. A national law condition requiring parties to be engaged in economic or professional activity for a jurisdiction agreement to be valid does not render the agreement “null and void as to its substantive validity” under EU law.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Dublin III Regulation
The CJEU has clarified that the non-extension or non-renewal of a residence permit does not constitute a “rejection” of an asylum application under Article 18(1)(d) of Regulation No 604/2013.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Air passenger rights: flight delays
The CJEU has clarified that a flight delay, for the purpose of compensation, must be determined based on the originally scheduled arrival time. If passengers arrive at their final destination three hours or more after the initial arrival time, they are entitled to compensation, regardless of any revised booking confirmations issued by the airline.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Air passenger rights
The CJEU clarified that airlines cannot escape their compensation obligations for flight delays by informing passengers of a schedule change shortly before the flight. If a flight arrives at its final destination three hours or more after the *originally* scheduled arrival time, passengers are entitled to compensation, regardless of any intermediate schedule changes communicated by the airline.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Customs valuation
The CJEU clarified that the customs authorities need more than just the knowledge that goods were introduced into the EU to accept a sale prior to the final sale as the basis for customs valuation. There must be clear evidence that the earlier sale was specifically intended for the goods to be marketed in the EU.
Court of Justice of the European Union – Weighing of fishery products
The CJEU ruled that, even if a Member State has a Commission-approved control plan for weighing after transport, its authorities retain the right to require weighing at the place of landing. The judgment reinforces the Member States’ authority to conduct inspections and weighings at the point of landing, irrespective of whether a control plan for later weighing is in place.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1511 of 30 June 2025 supplementing Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the establishment of a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1726 of 27 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 as regards the correction of the territorial scope of provisions concerning short-necked clam and red seabream
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2161 of 27 October 2025 implementing Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the technical requirements of on-board devices for the monitoring and recording of fuel and energy consumption and mileage of certain heavy-duty vehicles, and for determining and recording the payload or total weight thereof
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2159 of 27 October 2025 amending the implementing technical standards laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2284 as regards supervisory reporting and disclosures of investment firms
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2232 of 29 October 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1926 of 22 September 2025 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2226 of 29 October 2025 amending for the 351st 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
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2172 of 29 October 2025 granting protection in the Union to the Geographical Indication Vaj Ulliri Valmi Elbasan registered in the International Register of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications of the Geneva Act
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2195 of 29 October 2025 cancelling the registration of the protected designation of origin Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana (PDO)
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2195 cancels the registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’. The cancellation was requested by Spain and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Since no opposition was received, the Commission has adopted this regulation to remove the name from the Union register of geographical indications.
The structure of the act is simple, containing a preamble that explains the reasons for the cancellation, followed by two articles. Article 1 states that the registration of ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ (PDO) is cancelled. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not introduce changes compared to previous versions, as it specifically addresses the cancellation of a single PDO.
The most important provision is Article 1, which directly cancels the registration of the ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ (PDO). This means that the product can no longer be marketed under this protected designation of origin within the European Union.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2186 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid, sodium propionate and ammonium propionate as feed additives for all terrestrial animal species and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1222/2013 and (EU) No 305/2014
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2186 renews the authorization of propionic acid, sodium propionate, and ammonium propionate as feed additives for all terrestrial animal species. These additives are classified as technological additives and function as silage additives. The regulation repeals previous Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1222/2013 and (EU) No 305/2014, which initially authorized these substances.
The regulation consists of four articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorization of the specified substances under the conditions outlined in the annex. Article 2 repeals the previous regulations. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued marketing and use of products produced and labeled before November 19, 2026, in accordance with the old regulations until stocks are exhausted. Article 4 states the regulation’s entry into force. The annex specifies the identification number, composition, analytical method, animal species, and other provisions for each additive.
The most important provisions for users include the renewed authorization for propionic acid, sodium propionate, and ammonium propionate as silage additives for terrestrial animals until November 19, 2035. It is crucial to note the specific conditions for use, including maximum content levels in feed, the requirement for appropriate storage conditions, and the contraindication of simultaneous use with other organic acids. The regulation also emphasizes the need for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and protective measures to address potential health risks to users, including the use of personal protective equipment where risks cannot be eliminated otherwise.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2186 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of propionic acid, sodium propionate and ammonium propionate as feed additives for all terrestrial animal species and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1222/2013 and (EU) No 305/2014
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2186 renews the authorization of propionic acid, sodium propionate, and ammonium propionate as feed additives for all terrestrial animal species. These additives are classified as technological additives and function as silage additives. The regulation repeals previous implementing regulations (EU) No 1222/2013 and (EU) No 305/2014, which initially authorized these substances.
The regulation consists of four articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorization of the specified substances under the conditions outlined in the annex. Article 2 repeals the previous regulations. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued marketing and use of products produced and labeled before November 19, 2026, in accordance with the old rules until stocks are exhausted. Article 4 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the conditions of use, including composition, analytical methods, animal species, and maximum content levels.
The most important provisions for users include the renewed authorization for propionic acid, sodium propionate, and ammonium propionate as silage additives for terrestrial animals, with specific conditions for use. The regulation emphasizes the need for appropriate protective measures to prevent adverse effects on the health of users, requiring feed business operators to establish operational procedures and use personal protective equipment where necessary. The regulation also specifies that the additives should only be used in easy-to-ensile fresh plant materials and prohibits the simultaneous use of different organic acids or their salts at or near the maximum permitted content.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2176 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of the preparations of Pediococcus acidilactici NCIMB 30005, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627 as feed additives for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 849/2014
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2176 concerns the renewal of the authorisation for three feed additives: Pediococcus acidilactici NCIMB 30005, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei NCIMB 30151, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 16627. These additives are authorised for use in all animal species and are classified as technological additives, specifically as silage additives. The regulation repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 849/2014, which initially authorised these additives.
The regulation consists of four articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorisation of the specified additives, outlining the conditions for their use as detailed in the annex. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 849/2014. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing for the continued marketing and use of products produced and labelled under the previous regulation until stocks are exhausted, provided they were produced before 19 November 2026. Article 4 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the identification number, composition, analytical methods, and other provisions for each additive, including the end date of the authorisation period.
The main provisions of this regulation that are most important for its use are those outlined in the Annex. These include the specific conditions for the use of each additive, such as the minimum dose required when used as silage additives, and the requirement for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks to users of the additives and premixtures. It also mandates the use of personal protective equipment where risks cannot be eliminated through procedures and measures.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2173 of 29 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 as regards proof of origin for certain tariff rate quotas in the poultry sector and as regards the information to be mentioned on digital certificates of origin
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2173 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761, focusing on the proof of origin requirements for specific tariff rate quotas in the poultry sector and the information required on digital certificates of origin. The amendment aims to simplify the process for operators by allowing the submission of supply contracts as proof of origin for tariff rate quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420, reverting to pre-June 2021 practices. Additionally, it removes the requirement for digital certificates of origin to include the serial number of the import license.
The regulation consists of three articles. Article 1 details the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761, specifically modifying Annex XII regarding proof of origin for tariff quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420, and deleting point 4(d)(i) from Annex XVII concerning digital certificates of origin. Article 2 establishes transitional rules, stating that licenses issued before the application of these amendments must still be accompanied by certificates of origin for customs clearance. Article 3 covers the entry into force and application, specifying that the regulation takes effect seven days after its publication in the Official Journal and applies from the first license application period following a 90-day period after publication.
The most important provisions for operators are those relating to the proof of origin for tariff rate quotas 09.4410 and 09.4420. Instead of certificates of origin, operators can now use supply contracts specifying that the poultry supplies are available for delivery within the Union during the quota period and for the quantity requested. Also, the removal of the requirement to include the import license serial number on digital certificates of origin simplifies the use of these documents. The transitional rules are also important, as they specify that licenses issued before the new rules apply still require certificates of origin at customs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2183 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of L-valine produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80058 as a feed additive for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 848/2014
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2183 concerns the renewal of the authorization of L-valine produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80058 as a feed additive for all animal species. It confirms that L-valine remains safe for animals, consumers, and the environment under the specified conditions. The regulation repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 848/2014 and sets a new authorization period, along with transitional measures for the continued use of existing stocks.
The regulation consists of 4 articles and an annex.
* **Article 1** formally renews the authorization of L-valine as a feed additive, classifying it under ‘nutritional additives’ and ‘amino acids, their salts and analogues’, subject to the conditions outlined in the Annex.
* **Article 2** repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 848/2014, which previously authorized L-valine.
* **Article 3** outlines transitional measures, allowing the continued marketing and use of L-valine and premixtures produced and labeled before specific dates, under the previous regulations, until stocks are exhausted.
* **Article 4** specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The Annex specifies details such as the identification number of the feed additive, its composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, and the end date of the authorization period.
Key provisions of the act include the requirement for feed business operators to ensure L-valine is rumen protected when fed to ruminants, and the labeling of the additive and premixtures must indicate that supplementation with L-valine should consider all essential and conditionally essential amino acids to avoid imbalances. These provisions are crucial for ensuring the safe and effective use of L-valine in animal feed.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2175 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CECT 4528 as a feed additive for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 399/2014
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2175 concerns the renewal of the authorization for the use of *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* CECT 4528 as a feed additive for all animal species. It confirms the safety and efficacy of the additive, re-authorizes its use for another 10-year period, and repeals the previous authorization act, Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 399/2014. The regulation also includes transitional measures for products already on the market and mandates protective measures for workers handling the additive.
The regulation consists of four articles and an annex.
* **Article 1** renews the authorization of *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* CECT 4528 as a feed additive, classifying it as a ‘technological additive’ within the functional group of ‘silage additives,’ subject to the conditions outlined in the annex.
* **Article 2** repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 399/2014, which previously authorized the use of this additive.
* **Article 3** establishes transitional measures, allowing products produced and labeled before November 19, 2026, under the previous rules, to continue to be placed on the market and used until existing stocks are exhausted.
* **Article 4** specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The Annex specifies details such as the identification number of the feed additive (1k20746), composition, analytical methods, the animal species for which it is intended, and other provisions, including storage conditions, minimum dosage, and safety measures for users.
The most important provisions for the use of this act are:
* The additive is re-authorized for use as a silage additive for all animal species until November 19, 2035.
* Feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks to users of the additive and premixtures. If these risks cannot be eliminated, personal protective equipment for skin and breathing is required.
* There is a transitional period until November 19, 2026, for products already produced and labeled under the previous regulation to remain on the market.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2171 of 29 October 2025 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of calcium D-pantothenate (vitamin B5) and D-panthenol (vitamin B5) as feed additives for all animal species and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2014
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2171 renews the authorization for calcium D-pantothenate and D-panthenol (both forms of vitamin B5) as feed additives for all animal species. It classifies them as nutritional additives within the functional group of vitamins, pro-vitamins, and chemically well-defined substances having similar effects. The regulation also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2014, which initially authorized these additives.
The regulation consists of four articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the authorization of the substances specified in the Annex is renewed subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2014. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued use and marketing of products produced and labeled under the previous regulation for a certain period. Article 4 indicates that the regulation comes into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex specifies the identification number of the additive, composition, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, and other provisions. The main change is the addition of the common name “vitamin B5” to the additive’s name and the possibility for operators to indicate the additive on the label of feed materials and compound feed with the common name of the vitamin or with the specific chemical substance.
The most important provisions for users are those concerning the conditions of use outlined in the Annex, including purity criteria, analytical methods, and specific warnings. For calcium D-pantothenate, feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks resulting from the use of the additive and premixtures. Where those risks cannot be eliminated, the additive and premixtures shall be used with personal breathing protective equipment. For D-Panthenol, the additive shall only be used via water for drinking and personal skin, eye and breathing protective equipment should be used. Additionally, the transitional measures in Article 3 are crucial for businesses to understand how long they can continue using existing stock labeled under the old rules.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2181 of 29 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 as regards requirements for the import of used cooking oil
This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 to introduce harmonized requirements for the import of used cooking oil into the European Union. The goal is to facilitate international trade while preventing and minimizing risks to public and animal health. The regulation ensures that imported used cooking oil is properly handled and used for appropriate purposes, such as renewable fuels, biodiesel, or oleochemical products.
The regulation modifies Annexes I, XIV, and XV of Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. It adds a definition of “used cooking oil” to Annex I, clarifying that it refers to the oil fraction of catering waste that contains or consists of materials of animal origin. Annex XIV is amended to include specific import conditions for used cooking oil, including requirements for approved establishments in third countries and compliance with transport monitoring rules. A new model declaration is added as Chapter 22 to Annex XV, which must accompany consignments of used cooking oil at border control posts.
The most important provisions of this regulation include the requirement for used cooking oil to originate from approved or registered establishments in third countries. It also mandates that the consignments must be transported and monitored according to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1666, unless moved by a closed conveyer system. The used cooking oil must be filtered or physically separated from non-oil elements to meet a moisture and solid particle content threshold. Importers must also provide a declaration at the border control post, ensuring compliance with the regulation.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.Fugro NV v Council of the European Union.Appeal – Taxation – Combating of tax avoidance – Directive (EU) 2022/2523 – Global minimum level of taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union – Article 17 – International shipping income exclusion – Challenge to the scope of that exclusion – Admissibility – Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU – Locus standi – Lack of individual concern.Case C-146/24 P.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding an appeal by Fugro NV against an order of the General Court. The case concerns the admissibility of Fugro’s action seeking partial annulment of Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523, which aims to establish a global minimum level of taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union. The specific point of contention is Article 17 of the Directive, which provides an exclusion for international shipping income. The Court of Justice ultimately dismissed Fugro’s appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision that Fugro lacked the standing to bring the action because the Directive did not individually concern it.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the appeal, including the order of the General Court that is being appealed. It then details the legal context, focusing on Recital 17 and Articles 1(1) and 17 of Directive 2022/2523. The judgment summarizes the background to the dispute, including the Dutch tonnage tax scheme and Fugro’s activities. It presents the forms of order sought by Fugro and the Council, as well as the arguments made by the parties. Finally, the Court provides its findings, rejecting Fugro’s arguments and dismissing the appeal.
The core of the judgment revolves around the interpretation of “individual concern” under Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU, which determines who can bring an action for annulment of an EU act. The Court reiterates that a measure of general application can still be of individual concern if it affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when the measure was adopted, due to criteria specific to them. However, the Court found that Fugro was not part of such a limited class of operators specifically targeted by the Directive. The Court emphasized that benefiting from a favorable tax scheme does not create an acquired right and that the class of persons potentially affected by the Directive was not closed at the time of its adoption.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.KI and FA v Mercedes-Benz Bank AG and Volkswagen Bank GmbH.Preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Credit agreement for the purchase of a motor vehicle – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 10(2)(l) – Requirements relating to the information to be included in the agreement – Obligation to specify the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments – Article 14(1) – Right of withdrawal – Commencement of the withdrawal period in the absence of any reference to the interest rate applicable in the case of late payments – Unfairness of the exercise of the right of withdrawal – Consequences of exercising the right of withdrawal in the context of a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase agreement – Consumer’s obligations towards the creditor – Method of calculating compensation for loss of value of the financed asset – Article 14(3)(b) – Payment of interest following withdrawal from a credit agreement linked to a contract for the supply of goods.Case C-143/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding consumer protection in the context of credit agreements for vehicle purchases. The case revolves around Directive 2008/48/EC, which sets out rules for consumer credit agreements. The CJEU clarifies several aspects of this directive, particularly concerning the information requirements in credit agreements, the consumer’s right of withdrawal, and the financial consequences of exercising that right.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses five key questions raised by a German court. These questions concern:
1. **Calculation of Compensation for Vehicle Depreciation:** The CJEU clarifies that national case law on how to calculate compensation for vehicle depreciation after a consumer withdraws from a credit agreement must not include factors unrelated to the consumer’s use of the vehicle.
2. **Full Harmonization:** The CJEU finds that Directive 2008/48/EC does not fully harmonize the rules regarding the consequences of a consumer withdrawing from a credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase.
3. **Payment of Interest:** The CJEU rules that EU law does not prevent national laws from requiring consumers to pay interest for the period between when the loan was disbursed to the vehicle seller and when the vehicle is returned, even after the consumer withdraws from the credit agreement.
4. **Start of Withdrawal Period:** The CJEU states that the withdrawal period does not begin if the credit agreement fails to specify the interest rate applicable in case of late payments as a specific percentage.
5. **Abusive Exercise of Withdrawal Right:** The CJEU clarifies that a creditor cannot claim a consumer is abusing their withdrawal right if the credit agreement does not properly specify the late payment interest rate.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
* The judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and complete information in credit agreements, particularly regarding the interest rate applicable in case of late payments. It confirms that the withdrawal period does not start until this information is provided correctly.
* It clarifies the limits of national laws in calculating compensation for vehicle depreciation after withdrawal, ensuring that consumers are not penalized for exercising their rights.
* The judgment balances consumer protection with the legitimate interests of creditors, allowing them to charge interest for the period the loan was outstanding, even if the consumer withdraws from the agreement.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.UR, en qualité de mandataire liquidateur de V GmbH v DF.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – First subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Requirement of prior notification of projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority – Whether notification meets the requirements of that directive – Not consistent – Validity of the dismissal – First subparagraph of Article 4(1) – 30-day standstill period.Case C-134/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC. The case concerns a dispute in Germany about the validity of a dismissal that occurred during collective redundancies. The core issue is whether a dismissal can be valid if the employer failed to properly notify the competent public authority about the planned collective redundancies.
The judgment clarifies several aspects of Directive 98/59/EC. It emphasizes the importance of the 30-day standstill period following notification of collective redundancies to the competent public authority. The court rules that a dismissal cannot take effect before this 30-day period has passed, ensuring the authorities have time to seek solutions. Furthermore, the judgment states that an employer cannot rectify a failure to notify *after* the dismissal has already been issued, meaning the dismissal is not validated by a later notification. Finally, the CJEU declined to answer whether a national law can allow the competent authority to have the final say on when the standstill period expires, without the possibility of judicial review.
The key provisions clarified are Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 98/59/EC. The judgment reinforces the procedural requirements for collective redundancies, ensuring that employers properly inform and consult with the relevant authorities and workers’ representatives before implementing dismissals. This aims to protect workers’ rights and mitigate the negative consequences of collective redundancies.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.BL v Dr. A, en qualité de mandataire liquidateur de Luftfahrtgesellschaft Walter mbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – First subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Incorrect or incomplete notification of the projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority – First subparagraph of Article 4(1) – 30-day standstill period – Validity of the redundancies – Article 6 – Penalties.Case C-402/24.
This judgment addresses the interpretation of the Collective Redundancies Directive (98/59/EC), specifically focusing on the obligations of employers when planning collective redundancies and the role of national authorities in this process. The case revolves around a dispute in Germany concerning the dismissal of an employee, BL, in the context of insolvency proceedings and alleged irregularities in the notification of collective redundancies.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment clarifies the requirements for notifying projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority under Articles 3, 4, and 6 of Directive 98/59/EC.
* **Article 3:** It emphasizes that the notification to the public authority must contain all relevant information, including reasons for redundancies, number of affected workers, and the period over which redundancies will occur. The Court clarifies that an incomplete or incorrect notification cannot be considered compliant simply because the authority doesn’t object or because national laws promote cooperation between employers and authorities.
* **Article 4:** The judgment confirms that the 30-day standstill period following notification is designed to allow the public authority to seek solutions to the problems raised by the redundancies.
* **Article 6:** The Court states that Article 6 requires Member States to have judicial or administrative procedures to enforce the obligations under the Directive. The judgment clarifies that the standstill period under Article 4(1) does not fulfill the requirement of Article 6, meaning Member States must provide additional measures to ensure employers comply with notification obligations.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important takeaways from this judgment are:
1. **Complete Notification is Crucial:** Employers must ensure that notifications of projected collective redundancies are complete and accurate. A passive acceptance of an incomplete notification by the public authority does not equate to compliance.
2. **National Laws Must Ensure Enforcement:** Member States must have effective measures in place to penalize employers who fail to comply with the notification requirements. The 30-day standstill period is not a substitute for these enforcement measures.
3. **Rectification After Dismissal is Insufficient:** The judgment suggests that rectifying or supplementing a faulty notification after an employee has been dismissed does not fulfill the Directive’s objectives.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.NI v Republika Hrvatska.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Article 1(3) – Article 2(1) – Concept of ‘working time’ – Activities of public prosecutors – Directive 89/391/EEC – Article 2(2) – Characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities – Periods of time on stand-by at the workplace and periods of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system carried out outside of the workplace – Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fair and just working conditions.Case C-373/24.
This judgment addresses the working conditions of public prosecutors, specifically concerning working time and rest periods, within the context of EU directives on worker safety and health. The Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to clarify whether public prosecutors are considered “workers” under EU law and how their on-call time should be classified. The case originated from a dispute in Croatia regarding the payment of hours worked during on-call periods by a deputy public prosecutor.
The judgment is structured around three main questions referred by a Croatian court. First, it examines whether a public prosecutor falls under the definition of a “worker” according to Directive 2003/88/EC, which concerns the organization of working time. Second, it considers whether Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC allows Member States to exclude public prosecutors from the protections of Directive 2003/88/EC. Finally, it clarifies whether on-call duty, both at the workplace and at home, should be classified as “working time” under Directive 2003/88/EC.
The key provisions clarified are that public prosecutors do indeed fall within the scope of Directive 2003/88/EC as “workers”. Member States cannot exclude public prosecutors from the protections of this directive, provided their activities allow for the planning of working time. Furthermore, the judgment specifies that on-call time, whether at the workplace or at home, should be considered “working time” if the restrictions placed on the prosecutor significantly limit their ability to use that time for personal interests. This determination depends on the extent to which the prosecutor can freely manage their time during on-call periods.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista, SA v Administración General del Estado.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Customs warehousing procedure – Release for free circulation – Article 29 – Value of goods for customs purposes – Goods sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union – Article 112(3) – Determination of the customs value – Article 214(1) – Relevant point in time for the purpose of determining the customs value – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 97n(2) – Proof of origin of the goods – Article 118(1) and (3) – Period for submission of proofs of origin – Loss of the benefit of preferential treatment – Validity of documents proving the origin of the goods – Article 147 – Successive sales.Case C-348/24.
This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Spain. The case revolves around the interpretation of the Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions, specifically regarding the determination of customs value and the validity of proofs of origin for goods under the customs warehousing procedure. The central issue is whether the customs value of goods should be determined at the time they are placed in a customs warehouse or when they are released for free circulation, and how this relates to successive sales and the validity of origin certificates.
The judgment is structured around the questions posed by the Spanish Supreme Court, addressing them in a logical order. It begins by outlining the relevant articles of the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) and its implementing regulation (Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93). The court then reformulates the questions to focus on the core issue: the relevant point in time for determining customs value when goods are placed in a customs warehouse and subsequently released for free circulation. The judgment clarifies the interaction between Article 29 (customs value), Article 112(3) (release for free circulation), and Article 147 (successive sales) of the relevant regulations. Finally, it addresses the validity of certificates of origin, clarifying the conditions under which customs authorities must accept these documents for preferential tariff treatment.
The most important provisions clarified by this judgment are:
1. **Timing of Customs Valuation:** The CJEU clarifies that when goods are placed in a customs warehouse and later released for free circulation under a simplified procedure, the customs value can be determined at the time of placement in the warehouse, based on the transaction value at that time.
2. **Proof of Export Sale:** The judgment specifies that if the customs value is determined based on a sale that occurred before the goods entered the customs territory, it must be demonstrated that this sale was indeed for export to the EU. However, the act of placing goods in a customs warehouse can be considered an indication of intent to export to the EU.
3. **Validity of Origin Certificates:** The CJEU confirms that customs authorities are not obligated to accept proofs of origin submitted after their expiration date, even if the same certificate was previously accepted for other goods under the same quota. This emphasizes the importance of adhering to the prescribed timeframes for submitting documentation to claim tariff preferences.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 101 TFEU – Effectiveness – Directive 2014/104/EU – Rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union – Article 6(6) and (7) – Article 7(1) – Directive 2019/1/EU – Empowering the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market – Article 31(3) – Scope – Mechanism for mutual administrative and judicial assistance between national authorities – Transfer of the file from a competition authority to an authority conducting a criminal investigation – Addition to the file of a criminal investigation of leniency statements and settlement submissions and their annexes – Access to those documents by persons under investigation and other parties to such proceedings.Case C-2/23.
This judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union addresses the critical intersection between competition law and criminal law, specifically focusing on the protection of leniency statements and settlement submissions made by companies involved in cartels. The case originates from Austria, where a public prosecutor sought access to cartel case files, including leniency documents, for a criminal investigation. This raised questions about the extent to which EU law protects these documents from disclosure, especially in contexts outside of competition law enforcement.
The judgment is structured around three main questions referred by the Austrian court. It clarifies the scope of Article 101 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 31(3) of Directive 2019/1, which aims to empower national competition authorities. The Court examines whether EU law provides absolute protection to leniency statements, preventing their use in criminal proceedings, and whether this protection extends to related documents. It also considers whether access to these documents can be granted to other parties in criminal proceedings, such as co-defendants or injured parties seeking compensation.
The key provisions interpreted are:
* **Article 101 TFEU:** The Court clarifies that while Member States can establish mechanisms for administrative assistance, they must ensure these mechanisms do not undermine the effective application of EU competition law.
* **Article 31(3) of Directive 2019/1:** This article mandates that access to leniency statements and settlement submissions is restricted to parties in the relevant competition proceedings for the purpose of exercising their defense rights. The Court specifies that this protection does not extend to documents and information provided to explain or prove the content of leniency statements.
The Court rules that Article 101 TFEU does not prevent national authorities from sharing cartel files with prosecutors, as long as it doesn’t undermine the effectiveness of EU competition law. It also states that Article 31(3) of Directive 2019/1 allows access to leniency statements for defendants in criminal cases to exercise their rights of defence, but prohibits access for other parties, especially those seeking damages. This aims to balance the rights of the defence with the need to protect the leniency program and encourage companies to come forward with information about cartels.
The most important provisions for practical use are the interpretations of Article 31(3) of Directive 2019/1. The Court’s distinction between the protection afforded to leniency statements themselves and the related documents is crucial. While leniency statements are strictly protected, the information used to support those statements has a lower level of protection and may be disclosed. Also, the clarification that defendants in criminal proceedings can access leniency statements to defend themselves, but injured parties cannot, is a key point for balancing different interests.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.A v B.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters – Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 25(1) – Agreement conferring jurisdiction – Agreement null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of the Member State of the court seised of the case – Concept.Case C-398/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, also known as the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The case originates from Estonia and concerns a dispute between two individuals, A and B, regarding the validity of a jurisdiction clause in a contract they concluded.
The judgment clarifies the scope of the phrase “null and void as to its substantive validity” within the context of Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012. It specifies that national rules making the validity of a jurisdiction agreement conditional on the parties acting in the course of their economic or professional activity do not constitute a matter relating to the substantive validity of the agreement under EU law.
The CJEU interprets Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, stating that a national law condition requiring parties to be engaged in economic or professional activity for a jurisdiction agreement to be valid does not render the agreement “null and void as to its substantive validity” under EU law. The Court emphasizes that the “substantive validity” exception in Article 25(1) refers to general grounds for invalidity affecting contractual relationships, such as those related to consent (error, fraud) or capacity to contract, not to specific conditions related to the parties’ professional activities. The Court also notes that Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 aims to respect the autonomy of the parties and enhance the effectiveness of choice-of-court agreements. Allowing national laws to impose additional conditions based on the parties’ activities would undermine this objective and compromise legal certainty.
The most important provision is the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, specifically clarifying that national laws conditioning the validity of jurisdiction agreements on the parties’ economic or professional activities do not fall under the “null and void as to its substantive validity” exception. This clarification ensures the uniform application of the Regulation and upholds the principle of party autonomy in choice-of-court agreements within the EU.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.X v Maahanmuuttovirasto.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty – Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made by a third-country national – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Article 18(1)(d) – Obligations of the Member State responsible – Obligation to take back a third-country national whose application was rejected and who made an application in another Member State – Concept of ‘application (for international protection)’ – Special status of the Kingdom of Denmark – Concept of ‘rejection’ – Decision not to extend or renew a temporary residence document – Not included.Case C-790/23.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013), specifically Article 18(1)(d) concerning the obligations of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application. The case revolves around a Syrian national, X, who was initially granted a temporary residence permit in Denmark based on a need for protection but whose permit was later not renewed. X then applied for international protection in Finland, leading to a dispute over which country is responsible for processing her application.
The judgment clarifies the concept of “rejection” of an asylum application within the context of the Dublin III Regulation, particularly considering Denmark’s special status concerning EU asylum policies due to Protocol No. 22. The main issue is whether the non-renewal of a temporary residence permit equates to a rejection of an asylum application, triggering the take-back obligation under the Dublin Regulation.
Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:
* **Denmark’s Special Status:** The Court acknowledges Denmark’s unique position, which allows it to opt out of certain EU asylum measures. While Denmark applies Regulation No 604/2013 through an agreement, it is not bound by Directive 2011/95/EU, which defines “international protection” within the EU context.
* **Definition of “Application for International Protection” in Denmark:** For Denmark, an “application for international protection” refers to requests for protection under Danish national law, not necessarily the specific forms of protection (refugee or subsidiary protection status) defined in Directive 2011/95/EU.
* **”Rejection” as an Independent EU Law Concept:** The Court defines “rejection” as refusing a positive outcome to an application. It distinguishes this from situations where protection was initially granted but later terminated, withdrawn, revoked, or not renewed.
* **Non-Renewal is Not a Rejection:** The CJEU concludes that the non-extension or non-renewal of a residence permit does not constitute a “rejection” of an asylum application under Article 18(1)(d) of Regulation No 604/2013. The court emphasizes that the initial grant of a residence permit implies a positive outcome, even if temporary.
* **Relevance of Article 12(4):** The judgment points to Article 12(4) of Regulation No 604/2013 as the relevant provision for cases involving expired residence documents, indicating that the responsibility for examining the asylum application depends on how long ago the permit expired.
In essence, the Court ruled that Finland cannot automatically send X back to Denmark based on Article 18(1)(d) of the Dublin III Regulation because the non-renewal of her temporary permit is not equivalent to a rejection of her asylum application. The referring court (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) must consider other provisions of the Dublin III Regulation, such as Article 12(4), to determine which Member State is responsible for processing X’s asylum claim.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik AS v Myflyright GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 6 – Concept of ‘delay of a flight’ – Postponement of a flight announced in advance by the air carrier with confirmation of the new departure and arrival times – Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) – Right to compensation for passengers in the event of delays of three hours or more in the arrival of the flight – Concept of ‘scheduled time of arrival’ – Determination of the length of the delay.Case C-558/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding air passenger rights, specifically concerning flight delays and compensation. The case revolves around a flight from Munich to Antalya that was postponed, and the passengers received a new booking confirmation with later departure and arrival times. The key issue is whether the delay should be calculated from the original scheduled arrival time or the new arrival time indicated in the revised booking confirmation.
The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellation, or long delays of flights. The court emphasizes that a “delay” occurs when a flight operates according to the original plan but departs later than scheduled. It also reiterates that a flight postponement doesn’t automatically classify it as a “cancellation.”
The CJEU rules that the duration of a flight delay, for the purpose of compensation, must be determined based on the *originally* scheduled arrival time. This means that if passengers arrive at their final destination three hours or more after the initial arrival time, they are entitled to compensation, regardless of any revised booking confirmations issued by the airline. The court argues that using the new arrival time would allow airlines to unilaterally alter the agreed-upon flight schedule, undermining passenger protection. The judgment reinforces the importance of a high level of protection for air passengers and ensures that their rights are interpreted broadly.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik AS v Myflyright GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 6 – Concept of ‘delay of a flight’ – Postponement of a flight announced in advance by the air carrier with confirmation of the new departure and arrival times – Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) – Right to compensation for passengers in the event of delays of three hours or more in the arrival of the flight – Concept of ‘scheduled time of arrival’ – Determination of the length of the delay.Case C-558/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding air passenger rights in the event of flight delays, specifically addressing the calculation of delay duration when a flight’s departure and arrival times are changed before the flight.
**Essence of the Act:**
The judgment clarifies how to determine the length of a flight delay for compensation purposes under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 when an airline changes the flight schedule in advance. The CJEU ruled that the delay should be calculated based on the originally scheduled arrival time, not the revised time communicated to passengers in a new booking confirmation. This ensures that airlines cannot avoid compensation by simply changing the flight times shortly before departure.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses a request for a preliminary ruling from a German court. The case revolves around passengers on a Corendon Airlines flight who were informed of a schedule change the day before departure. The court examines the relevant articles of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, specifically Article 5 (Cancellation) and Article 7 (Right to compensation), in conjunction with Article 6 (Delay).
The court’s reasoning focuses on:
* The definition of “delay” versus “cancellation” under the regulation.
* The established principle that passengers delayed by three hours or more are entitled to compensation, similar to those whose flights are cancelled.
* The objective of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide a high level of protection for air passengers.
The judgment concludes that using the originally scheduled arrival time to calculate delays aligns with the regulation’s purpose of protecting passengers and preventing airlines from unilaterally altering agreed-upon flight schedules.
**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
The most important takeaway from this judgment is that airlines cannot escape their compensation obligations for flight delays by informing passengers of a schedule change shortly before the flight. If a flight arrives at its final destination three hours or more after the *originally* scheduled arrival time, passengers are entitled to compensation under Regulation No 261/2004, regardless of any intermediate schedule changes communicated by the airline. This ruling strengthens passenger rights and provides clarity on how delays should be calculated in such situations.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 October 2025.Grupo Massimo Dutti SA v Administración General del Estado.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Article 29 – Value of goods for customs purposes – Determination – Goods sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 147 – Successive sales.Case C-500/24.
This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of customs regulations concerning the valuation of goods for import duties. The case revolves around successive sales of goods before they enter the EU and how to determine which sale price should be used for calculating customs value. The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a sale can be considered “for export to the customs territory of the European Union” when multiple sales occur before the goods are imported.
The judgment addresses a request for a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) in a case between Grupo Massimo Dutti SA and the Spanish Tax Authority. The core issue is whether the price of the first sale between an Asian manufacturer and ITX Trading S.A. (a Swiss company) can be used as the customs value, or whether the price of the second sale between ITX and Massimo Dutti should be used. The Spanish Tax Authority argued that the first sale was not explicitly “for export to the customs territory of the European Union.”
The CJEU interprets Article 29 of the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) and Article 147 of its implementing regulation (Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93). It specifies that for a sale to be considered “for export to the customs territory of the European Union,” it is not sufficient that the goods are merely introduced into that territory. Instead, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the sale was specifically intended for the goods to be marketed within the EU. The Court clarifies that simply knowing the goods will enter the EU is not enough; there must be evidence that the intention behind the sale was for the goods to be sold on the EU market. The judgment emphasizes that the customs value must reflect the real economic value of an imported good and that the “transaction value” method should exclude arbitrary or fictitious customs values.
The most important provision is the clarification that in cases of successive sales, the customs authorities need more than just the knowledge that goods were introduced into the EU to accept a sale prior to the final sale as the basis for customs valuation. There must be clear evidence that the earlier sale was specifically intended for the goods to be marketed in the EU. This ruling affects companies engaged in international trade, particularly those using intermediary companies located outside the EU for the purchase of goods intended for the EU market.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 October 2025.PN and Others v Sea Fisheries Protection Authority.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common fisheries policy – Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 – Weighing of fishery products – Article 60(2) – Weighing carried out on landing – Article 61(1) – Weighing carried out after transport from the place of landing – Place of weighing in the event of an inspection – Possibility for the competent authorities to require weighing of fisheries products at the place of landing before the fisheries products are transported elsewhere.Case C-546/24.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of EU regulations concerning the weighing of fishery products, specifically addressing the interplay between the general rule of weighing upon landing and the possibility of weighing after transport. The Court of Justice was asked to determine whether a Member State, having adopted a control plan allowing for weighing after transport, is still permitted to require weighing at the place of landing.
The judgment revolves around Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, which establishes a control system for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It focuses on Article 60(2), which generally mandates weighing fishery products upon landing, and Article 61(1), which allows Member States to permit weighing after transport under specific conditions (approved control plan). The Court interprets these articles in conjunction with Article 60(6), which grants competent authorities the power to require weighing at the place of landing.
The Court concludes that Article 61(1) provides a derogation only from Article 60(2), not from Article 60(6). Therefore, even if a Member State has a Commission-approved control plan for weighing after transport, its authorities retain the right to require weighing at the place of landing. This interpretation is supported by the need for effective risk management and the broader objectives of the CFP, including the conservation of living aquatic resources. The judgment reinforces the Member States’ authority to conduct inspections and weighings at the point of landing, irrespective of whether a control plan for later weighing is in place.
