Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1766
This regulation supplements the EU’s fisheries control system, providing detailed rules for surveillance, inspection, and enforcement. It addresses technical failures in monitoring systems, clarifies the roles of control observers, standardizes inspection procedures, and sets rules for the point system for serious infringements. It also covers quota deductions and protects personal data. Key updates include rules for non-satellite tracking devices, detailed monitoring of area entries/exits, enhanced observer provisions, forced labor inspection protocols, detailed master registration, and quota deduction rules.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2311
This regulation establishes a fisheries closure for European hake for French vessels in specific GFCM subareas (8, 9, 10, and 11). Due to France exhausting its 2025 quota, fishing, searching for fish, and deploying gear are prohibited after October 22, 2025. Exceptions exist for handling catches taken before the closure, and procedures are outlined for managing unintended catches.
General Court Judgment: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v European Commission
The General Court upheld the Commission’s decision that an arbitration agreement between DEI (a Greek electricity company) and Metlen (an aluminum producer) did not constitute State aid. The court affirmed the correct application of the private investor test, rejecting DEI’s arguments of procedural errors and insufficient investigation. The judgment clarifies the conditions for applying the private investor test in cases involving State-controlled entities and arbitration agreements.
General Court Judgment: Centex SpA v EUIPO
The General Court upheld the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision regarding the figurative mark “OWN.” The court found that the Board of Appeal correctly admitted new evidence and that the opponent had sufficiently demonstrated genuine use of its earlier “my own” mark for “outerwear for women.” The judgment clarifies the admissibility of new evidence before the Board of Appeal and the requirements for demonstrating genuine use of an earlier trade mark in opposition proceedings.
General Court Judgment on Regulation (EU) 2022/2577
The General Court dismissed an action seeking internal review of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577, designed to accelerate renewable energy deployment. The court held that the Council’s rejection of the request was lawful because the regulation was adopted in a legislative capacity and, thus, not subject to internal review under the Aarhus Regulation. The court emphasizes that the concept of ‘legislative capacity’ is not limited to acts adopted under standard legislative procedures.
EFTA Court Case E-19/24: EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Regulation 2022/1859)
The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1859. This regulation concerns technical standards for the format of applications for registration and extension of registration as trade repositories.
EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Iceland’s Non-Implementation of Regulation (EU) 2022/750
The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/750, which concerns benchmarks used in certain Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivative contracts, into its legal system. This non-compliance violates Iceland’s obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).
EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Iceland’s Non-Implementation of Regulation (EU) 2023/314
The EFTA Court found Iceland in violation of the EEA Agreement for failing to implement Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/314, which relates to risk management procedures for collateral exchange. Iceland is now legally obligated to incorporate this regulation into its national law.
EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the EIA Directive
The EFTA Court clarified that greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas are considered “effects” of extraction projects under the EIA Directive. The court also addressed national courts’ obligations to remedy failures in conducting environmental impact assessments and prohibited retroactively dispensing with the assessment obligation.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision: Norway Rail Freight Compensation Scheme
The EFTA Surveillance Authority approved Norway’s compensation scheme for rail freight operators affected by the Otta bridge closure. The scheme provides grants covering up to 95% of losses during the closure period, with a total budget of NOK 70 million. This is deemed not to violate state aid regulations.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No. 117/25/COL
This decision formally appoints Johanne Førde as a Hearing Officer, replacing Michael Sánchez Rydelski, to ensure the continuation of fair and impartial oversight of competition proceedings within the EFTA framework.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision: Norwegian Innovation and Development Scheme for News Media
The EFTA Surveillance Authority approved amendments to Norway’s innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media. The scheme provides grants to promote the development of editorial content and new solutions, with a budget of NOK 30 million per year, in effect until the end of 2028. Aid intensity is capped at 40%, but can reach 75% for small local news outlets.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1766 of 27 August 2025 supplementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 by laying down rules on the control of fisheries and on the surveillance and inspection of fishing activities, enforcement and compliance
Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects of the regulation:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1766 supplements Council Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009, which establishes the Union’s control system for fisheries. It provides detailed rules for fisheries control, surveillance and inspection of fishing activities, enforcement, and compliance. The regulation addresses technical failures in monitoring systems, clarifies the duties and security of control observers, standardizes inspection procedures, and sets rules for the point system related to serious infringements. It also covers quota deductions for non-compliance and ensures the protection of personal data collected for control purposes.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured into six titles, covering general provisions, control of fisheries, surveillance and inspection, enforcement, measures to ensure compliance and final provisions, and includes several annexes.
* **Title I (General Provisions):** Defines the subject matter and key definitions, including “vessel monitoring device.”
* **Title II (Control of Fisheries):**
* **Chapter I:** Focuses on monitoring fishing activities by fisheries monitoring centers (FMC), including rules for monitoring entry into and exit from specific areas, and measures for technical or communication failures of vessel monitoring devices. It also details actions to be taken when data concerning vessel position and movement is not received.
* **Chapter II:** Addresses issues related to fishing logbooks, prior notifications, transhipment declarations, and landing declarations, particularly in cases of technical failure of electronic recording and reporting systems. It also outlines measures for non-receipt of data and data access failures.
* **Title III (Surveillance and Inspection):**
* **Chapter I:** Sets out measures to ensure the independence of control observers, their duties, and their security on fishing vessels.
* **Chapter II:** Details the conduct of inspections, including the duties of officials, general provisions for inspections at sea, in ports, during transport, and at marketplaces. It also includes specific provisions for inspections related to forced labor, fishing gear, operators without vessels, bluefin tuna farms, and recreational fisheries. It also specifies the duties of operators and masters during inspections.
* **Title IV (Enforcement):**
* **Chapter I:** Specifies the follow-up actions for the suspension and permanent withdrawal of fishing licenses and the right to command a fishing vessel. It also outlines conditions for the deletion of points assigned for infringements.
* **Chapter II:** Establishes rules for the registration of masters, including the recording of points assigned to them for serious infringements.
* **Title V (Measures to Ensure Compliance):** Sets deadlines and requirements for Member States’ responses to Commission findings regarding quota deductions for non-compliance. It also details how the quantities to be deducted are determined.
* **Title VI (Final Provisions):** Addresses the protection and processing of personal data and specifies the date of entry into force and application of the regulation.
**Main Changes:**
This regulation supplements Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, incorporating amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2023/2842. These updates include:
* Rules for the use of non-satellite tracking devices.
* Detailed rules for monitoring entry into and exit from specific areas.
* Additional provisions concerning the independence, duties, and security of control observers.
* Rules on the conduct of inspections for the detection of fishing activities with the use of forced labour.
* Detailed rules for the registration of masters authorised to carry out fishing activities and for the recording of points assigned to them.
* Rules regarding the deduction of quotas, including the determination of the quantities to be deducted.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Monitoring Systems:** The detailed requirements for vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and electronic recording and reporting systems (ERS) are crucial for ensuring compliance. Fishing vessel operators need to be aware of the protocols for reporting technical failures and the consequences of non-compliance.
* **Inspection Procedures:** The standardized inspection procedures, including the duties of officials and the obligations of operators and masters, provide a clear framework for inspections at sea, in ports, and during transport.
* **Control Observers:** The provisions regarding the independence, duties, and security of control observers are important for ensuring the integrity of the control process.
* **Point System:** The rules for the point system, including the registration of masters and the follow-up actions for suspension or withdrawal of licenses, are critical for deterring serious infringements.
* **Forced Labour:** The inclusion of inspection protocols related to forced labor is a significant addition, reflecting the EU’s commitment to combating human rights abuses in the fisheries sector.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2327 of 12 November 2025 amending for the 353rd 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) 2025/2287 of 12 November 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of adipic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2272 of 12 November 2025 renewing the approval of the active substance gibberellins as a low-risk active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2290 of 6 November 2025 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2055 of 2 October 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards asylum and migration management and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2253 of 11 November 2025 correcting certain language versions of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2196 of 17 October 2025 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 as regards access to waters and resources, control of fisheries, surveillance, inspection and enforcement, deduction of quotas and fishing efforts, data and information, and repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2274 of 12 November 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1487 as regards the adoption of the work programme for the gradual review of safeners and synergists
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2269 of 12 November 2025 correcting Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 as regards labelling of recycled plastic, the development of recycling technologies and the transfer of authorisations
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2311 of 7 November 2025 establishing a fisheries closure for European hake in GFCM geographical subareas 8, 9, 10 and 11 for vessels flying the flag of France
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2311 establishes a fisheries closure for European hake in specific geographical subareas of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) for vessels flying the flag of France. The regulation prohibits fishing activities targeting European hake in GFCM subareas 8, 9, 10, and 11 because France has exhausted its allocated quota for this stock in 2025. It aims to ensure compliance with the established fishing opportunities and to protect the European hake stock in the Mediterranean Sea.
The Regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the fishing quota allocated to France for European hake in the specified GFCM subareas for 2025 is deemed exhausted from the date set out in the Annex. Article 2 outlines the prohibitions, including fishing, searching for fish, and deploying fishing gear. However, it allows for transshipping, retaining on board, processing, transferring, caging, fattening, and landing of fish caught before the closing date. It also specifies the handling of unintended catches. Article 3 states that the regulation enters into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex specifies the Member State (France), the stock (European hake), the relevant zone (GFCM subareas 8-11), and the closing date (October 22, 2025).
The most important provision is Article 2, which explicitly prohibits fishing for European hake by French vessels in the designated areas after October 22, 2025. However, it is equally important to note the exceptions outlined in paragraph 2, which allow for the handling of catches taken before the closure date. Furthermore, paragraph 3 addresses the management of unintended catches, ensuring they are recorded, landed, and counted against quotas, in accordance with existing regulations.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2025.LG Electronics, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark WASHTOWER – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-252/24.
Arrêt du Tribunal (dixième chambre) du 12 novembre 2025.#Roumanie contre Commission européenne.#FEAGA et Feader – Dépenses exclues du financement – Dépenses effectuées par la Roumanie – Déficience relative au contrôle créant un risque pour le Feader pour les années 2018 et 2019 – Notion d’“unité administrative locale”.#Affaire T-15/23.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 November 2025.Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v European Commission.State aid – Electricity supply tariff – Conclusion of an arbitration agreement in order to fix the tariff – Decision to close the complaint – Decision finding no aid – Right to be heard – Advantage – Private investor test – Complex economic assessment.Joined Cases T-639/14 RENV II and T-352/15 RENV.
This is the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of the European Union regarding a dispute over alleged State aid granted through an electricity supply tariff in Greece. The case involves Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), a Greek electricity producer and supplier, and Metlen Energy & Metals AE (Metlen), an aluminum producer. The core issue is whether an arbitration agreement between DEI and Metlen to fix electricity tariffs constitutes State aid.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Describes the initial dispute, the arbitration agreement, and the complaints lodged by DEI with the European Commission.
* **Commission Decisions:** Details the Commission’s decisions, including the initial closure of the complaint, the first decision finding no aid, and the second decision, also finding no aid, which expressly repealed and replaced the previous decisions.
* **Procedural History:** Outlines the various actions and appeals before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including the setting aside of the initial judgment and the referral of the case back to the General Court.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Summarizes the requests of DEI and the Commission (supported by Metlen) regarding the annulment of decisions and the allocation of costs.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and the General Court’s reasoning. It addresses the following key points:
* **Preliminary Observations:** Discusses the scope of the referral back to the General Court and the pleas that remain to be addressed.
* **Sixth Plea in Law:** Examines whether the private investor test was correctly applied, both in terms of its applicability and its application to the specific facts of the case.
* **Fifth Plea in Law:** Addresses whether the Commission was required to conduct complex economic assessments.
* **Second Plea in Law:** Considers whether the applicant’s right to be heard was infringed.
* **Seventh Plea in Law:** Assesses whether the Commission erred in not further investigating the initial complaint.
* **First Plea in Law:** Determines whether the Commission correctly interpreted the Court of Justice’s judgment regarding the replacement of the contested letter and the first contested decision.
* **Costs:** Allocates the costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment focuses on whether the Commission correctly assessed the case under EU State aid rules. The General Court ultimately upholds the Commission’s decision that the arbitration agreement did not constitute State aid.
Key provisions and changes include:
* **Private Investor Test:** The court affirms that the Commission was correct to apply the private investor test, focusing on whether a private operator would have entered into the arbitration agreement under similar circumstances.
* **Rejection of DEI’s Arguments:** The court rejects DEI’s arguments that the Commission failed to conduct a proper assessment of the facts and that its right to be heard was infringed.
* **Withdrawal and Replacement of Decisions:** The court finds that the Commission’s second decision validly withdrew and replaced the earlier decisions, addressing the procedural issues raised in previous judgments.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
For those potentially affected by this judgment, the following aspects are particularly important:
* **Application of the Private Investor Test:** The judgment clarifies how the private investor test should be applied in cases involving State-controlled entities and arbitration agreements. It emphasizes that the focus should be on the decision to enter into the agreement, rather than the specific outcome of the arbitration.
* **Commission’s Discretion:** The judgment confirms the Commission’s discretion in conducting complex economic assessments and in deciding whether to initiate a formal investigation procedure.
* **Procedural Requirements:** The judgment addresses the procedural requirements for withdrawing and replacing decisions in State aid cases, ensuring that the Commission acts within the bounds of EU law.
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2025.Centex SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark OWN – Earlier national word mark my own – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-34/25.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The core issue revolves around an application for the EU figurative mark “OWN” which was opposed by the proprietor of an earlier German word mark “my own”. The court had to decide whether the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) was correct in its decision to partially uphold the appeal against the Opposition Division’s initial rejection of the opposition. The key points of contention were the admissibility of new evidence presented before the Board of Appeal and whether genuine use of the earlier mark “my own” had been sufficiently demonstrated.
The judgment is structured around two main pleas raised by Centex SpA, the applicant seeking to register the “OWN” mark. The first plea concerns the admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal, arguing that it didn’t meet the criteria for being considered new evidence. The court analyses Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, which govern the EUIPO’s discretion in considering late-submitted evidence. The court finds that the Board of Appeal acted correctly in admitting the evidence, as it was relevant and supplemented existing evidence.
The second plea focuses on whether Adler Modemärkte GmbH, the opponent, had sufficiently demonstrated genuine use of its earlier “my own” mark, as required by Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001. Centex SpA argued that the evidence was undated, unsubstantiated, and didn’t prove consistent use or a link between sales figures and the goods marketed under the “my own” mark. The court reviews the evidence presented, including an affidavit, website screenshots, catalogues, and newsletters, and concludes that the Board of Appeal was correct in finding that genuine use had been demonstrated, specifically for “outerwear for women” in Class 25. The court also clarifies the scope of “outerwear,” rejecting the argument that it’s limited to only coats and overcoats.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
1. **Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625:** These articles define the conditions under which EUIPO can accept new evidence during appeal proceedings.
2. **Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001:** These articles outline the requirements for demonstrating genuine use of an earlier trade mark in opposition proceedings.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2025.Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional and Lusosider-Aços Planos S. A. v European Commission.Commercial policy – Dumping – Imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran and Russia – Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties – Article 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Manifest error of assessment.Case T-110/24.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 November 2025.CEE Bankwatch Network z.s. and Ökobüro – Allianz der Umweltbewegung v Council of the European Union.Environment – Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy – Request for internal review – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Refusal of request – Act adopted on the basis of Article 122(1) TFEU – Act not capable of being the subject of a request for internal review – Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 – Concept of ‘administrative act’ – Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention – Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention – Act adopted in a ‘legislative capacity’.Case T-535/23.
This is a judgment of the General Court regarding the legality of the Council’s decision to reject a request for internal review of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577, which aims to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy. The Court examines whether the Council was correct in deeming the regulation not to be an “administrative act” subject to internal review under the Aarhus Regulation. The Court ultimately upholds the Council’s decision, finding that Regulation 2022/2577 was adopted by the Council acting in a legislative capacity and therefore not subject to the internal review process.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the applicants’ request for internal review and the Council’s rejection. It then presents the forms of order sought by the parties. The core of the judgment is the “Law” section, where the Court analyzes the applicants’ pleas, focusing on the interpretation of “administrative act” under the Aarhus Regulation. The Court considers the literal, contextual, and teleological interpretations of the relevant provisions, referencing the Aarhus Convention and related case law. Finally, the Court provides its reasoning for dismissing the action and addresses the issue of costs.
The most important provision is the interpretation of “administrative act” within the meaning of Article 2(1)(g) of the Aarhus Regulation. The Court clarifies that this concept refers to any act not adopted by an EU institution acting in a legislative capacity, and not only to legislative acts adopted under the ordinary or special legislative procedure. The judgment emphasizes a functional approach to determining whether an institution is acting in a “legislative capacity,” considering both the nature of the body and the substance of the act. This interpretation is crucial for determining which EU acts are subject to internal review under the Aarhus Regulation.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 November 2025.Föreningen Svenskt Landskapsskydd and Others v Council of the European Union.Environment – Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy – Request for internal review – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Refusal of request – Act adopted on the basis of Article 122(1) TFEU – Act not capable of being the subject of a request for internal review – Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 – Concept of ‘administrative act’ – Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention – Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention – Act adopted in a ‘legislative capacity’.Case T-534/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a request for internal review of Regulation (EU) 2022/2577, which aims to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy. The court dismisses an action brought by environmental associations seeking to annul the Council’s decision to reject their request for an internal review of the regulation. The associations argued that the regulation should be subject to internal review under the Aarhus Regulation, which concerns environmental matters.
The structure of the judgment involves the court addressing several pleas raised by the applicants. These include arguments that the Council’s decision lacked adequate reasoning, infringed the Aarhus Convention and related regulations, and violated the principle of legal certainty. The court systematically rejects each of these pleas, providing detailed legal reasoning for its conclusions.
The key provision at issue is whether Regulation 2022/2577 constitutes an “administrative act” as defined in the Aarhus Regulation, which would make it subject to internal review. The court finds that the regulation, adopted under Article 122(1) TFEU, does not qualify as an administrative act because it was adopted by the Council acting in a legislative capacity. The court emphasizes that the concept of “legislative capacity” under the Aarhus Convention is not limited to acts adopted under the standard legislative procedures of the EU treaties but includes acts involving broad discretion and political choices by the Council.
Urteil des Gerichts (Siebte Kammer) vom 12. November 2025.#V-Label GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Nichtigkeitsverfahren – Unionsbildmarke VRIENDLY.ORG V VEGAN – Ältere internationale Registrierung der Gewährleistungsbildmarke V – Relative Nichtigkeitsgründe – Keine Verwechslungsgefahr – Art. 8 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Inhärente Kennzeichnungskraft der älteren internationalen Registrierung – Durch Benutzung erworbene erhöhte Kennzeichnungskraft – Fehlende Bekanntheit der älteren internationalen Registrierung – Art. 8 Abs. 5 der Verordnung 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-464/24.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 2025 in Case E-19/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to implement – Regulation (EU) 2022/1859 – Technical standards for registration as trade repositories)
This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1859 into its national law. The regulation concerns technical standards for the format of applications for registration and extension of registration as trade repositories. The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought the case against Iceland for not fulfilling its obligations under the EEA Agreement. The Court ruled that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* It identifies the case (E-19/24) and the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland).
* It states the legal basis for the application, which is Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, concerning the implementation of EU legislation into the internal legal order of EEA member states.
* It refers to point 31bcc of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, which incorporates Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1859.
* The operative part of the judgment contains two points:
* A declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing the specified regulation.
* An order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1859 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248/2012, which lays down implementing technical standards (ITS) regarding the format for applications for registration as trade repositories and for applications for extension of registration as trade repositories under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR).
**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1859 into its national law. This means Iceland is legally obliged to take the necessary measures to implement the regulation. The judgment highlights the importance of EEA member states adhering to their obligations to incorporate relevant EU legislation into their national legal systems to ensure the consistent application of EEA law across the EEA.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 2025 in Case E-20/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to implement – Regulation (EU) 2022/750 – Benchmarks in OTC derivative contracts)
This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement a specific EU regulation into its national law. The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/750, which concerns benchmarks used in certain Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivative contracts, into its legal system.
The judgment is structured in two points. First, it declares that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/750 into its internal legal order. Second, it orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgment refers to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/750, which amends the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2205. The amendment concerns the transition to new benchmarks referenced in certain OTC derivative contracts.
The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the importance of EEA member states adhering to their commitments to incorporate relevant EU legislation into their national laws, particularly concerning financial regulations that impact derivative contracts.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 2025 in Case E-21/24 – EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to implement – Regulation (EU) 2023/314 – Risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral)
This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement a specific EU regulation into its national law. The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Specifically, Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/314, which concerns risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral, into its legal framework.
The judgment is structured as follows: it identifies the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland), and the legal basis for the action (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). It clearly states the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s application, which seeks a declaration that Iceland failed to adopt the necessary measures to implement Regulation (EU) 2023/314. The operative part of the judgment contains two points: the Court declares Iceland’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement and orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2023/314 into its national law. This means Iceland is legally bound to take the necessary steps to implement the regulation to comply with its EEA obligations.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 21 May 2025 in Case E-18/24 – The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Energy v Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway (Environment – Directive 2011/92/EU – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Article 3(1) – Projects covered by Annex I – Extraction of petroleum and natural gas that will be sold to third parties – Principle of sincere cooperation – Requirement to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of EEA law)
This is a judgment from the EFTA Court concerning a case between the Norwegian State and environmental organizations, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway, regarding the interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU, as amended by 2014/52/EU). The court clarifies that greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas, even when sold to third parties, are considered “effects” of the extraction project and fall under the scope of the EIA Directive. Furthermore, the judgment addresses the obligation of national courts to remedy failures in conducting a full environmental impact assessment, including the possibility of regularization under certain conditions. Finally, the court states that a national court may not retroactively dispense with the obligation to assess the effects under Article 3(1) of the Directive 2011/92/EU.
The judgment is structured around three key points. First, it defines the scope of “effects” under the EIA Directive to include emissions from the combustion of extracted resources, even if sold to third parties. Second, it outlines the responsibilities of national courts when an environmental impact assessment has not been properly conducted, allowing for regularization under specific conditions that ensure the integrity of EEA law. Third, it prohibits the retroactive dispensing of the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.
The most important provisions are those clarifying the scope of “effects” under the EIA Directive and the conditions under which a national court can allow for the regularization of a project that initially failed to undergo a proper environmental impact assessment. These provisions ensure that environmental considerations are fully integrated into project planning and execution, and that failures to comply with the EIA Directive are appropriately addressed without undermining the Directive’s objectives.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a state aid measure implemented by Norway. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to Norway’s compensation scheme for rail freight operators who suffered losses due to the closure of the Otta bridge, which was damaged by icing. The scheme aims to compensate these operators for direct losses incurred during the bridge closure period, from January 21, 2025, to April 4, 2025. The aid will be provided in the form of grants, covering up to 95% of the losses, with a total budget of NOK 70 million.
The decision provides key details about the state aid measure, including the date of adoption, case number, decision number, the EFTA State involved (Norway), and the region affected (all regions). It specifies the legal basis for the scheme, which is Norway’s 2025 State budget. The decision also outlines the objective of the scheme, the form of aid (grants), the budget allocated, the intensity of the aid (95%), and the duration of the compensation period. Furthermore, it identifies the economic sector that will benefit from the aid, namely freight rail transport (NACE H – 49.200), and provides the name and address of the granting authority, which is the Norwegian Railway Directorate.
The most important provisions for understanding the scope and impact of this decision are the compensation period (January 21, 2025, to April 4, 2025), the intensity of the aid (95% of losses), and the total budget (NOK 70 million). These elements define the timeframe, level of support, and overall financial commitment of the Norwegian government to compensate rail freight operators affected by the Otta bridge closure. The decision essentially approves Norway’s plan to provide financial assistance to these operators without violating state aid regulations.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 117/25/COL of 9 July 2025 on the designation of a new Hearing Officer in certain competition proceedings [2025/2308]
This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No. 117/25/COL concerns the appointment of a new Hearing Officer within the context of certain competition proceedings. The decision replaces one Hearing Officer whose contract ended with a new appointee to ensure the continued operation and oversight of these proceedings. It ensures the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s ability to properly handle competition cases.
The decision is structured with a preamble that outlines the reasoning behind the change, followed by four articles. Article 1 formally appoints Johanne Førde as a Hearing Officer. Article 2 terminates the appointment of Michael Sánchez Rydelski. Article 3 mandates the publication of the appointments in the Official Journal of the European Union, the EEA Supplement, and on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website, and also requires informing the EFTA States and the European Commission. Article 4 states that the decision is authentic in English and enters into force on 9 July 2025. This decision does not introduce new rules or procedures for competition proceedings but rather ensures the continuity of the existing framework by maintaining the required personnel.
The most important provision is Article 1, which ensures that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has the necessary personnel to fulfill its duties in overseeing competition proceedings. The appointment of Johanne Førde ensures that the function of Hearing Officer remains occupied, allowing for the continued fair and impartial handling of competition cases within the EFTA framework.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a Norwegian state aid scheme. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to amendments made to Norway’s innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media. The scheme aims to promote the development of editorial content and new solutions for its production, publishing, or dissemination. The aid is provided in the form of grants, with a maximum budget of NOK 30 million per year, and will be in effect from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2028.
The decision concerns a specific case (Case No 94252) related to amendments to an existing scheme in Norway. The legal basis for the scheme is the “Regulation on innovation and development aid to news and current affairs media.” The objective of the scheme is to foster the development of editorial content and new solutions for the media sector, including projects aimed at increasing content consumption. The aid intensity is capped at 40%, but can reach 75% for small local news outlets. The scheme applies to a range of economic sectors as defined by NACE codes, including publishing, radio and television broadcasting, and other information service activities.
The most important provisions are the objectives of the scheme, which focus on promoting innovation and development in the news and current affairs media, and the level of aid intensity, which is differentiated to favor small local news outlets. The duration of the scheme, until the end of 2028, is also a key element for potential beneficiaries.
