Case T-173/24: DI v European Parliament
This judgment concerns a complaint of psychological harassment filed against DI, a former Member of the European Parliament, by his parliamentary assistant. The General Court upheld the European Parliament President’s decisions finding DI guilty of psychological harassment and imposing a reprimand. The court rejected DI’s pleas, confirming that his rights of defense were respected, procedural deadlines were met, there was no misuse of power, the Parliament’s assessment was correct, and there was no breach of confidentiality.
Case T-543/24: Aboca SpA Soc. agr. v EUIPO
The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision regarding the trademark ABOCA for wines. Aboca SpA Soc. agr. sought to revoke the trademark owned by Azienda Agroalimentare Grignano Srl, but the court found that the trademark owner demonstrated genuine use of the ABOCA trademark for wines. The court confirmed that evidence of economic activity, such as invoices showing sales under the ABOCA brand, was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use, dismissing Aboca’s appeal.
Case T-175/23: Amazon EU Sàrl v Commission
Amazon is challenging the European Commission’s decision to designate Amazon Store as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Amazon argues that several articles within the DSA infringe upon fundamental rights. The judgment examines the legality of key provisions, including those defining the criteria for VLOP designation and imposing systemic risk management obligations. The court is assessing whether these obligations are overly burdensome and infringe on rights such as freedom to conduct a business, right to property, and freedom of expression. The core is Article 33(1) setting the 45 million AMAR threshold.
Case T-612/23: Zündapp Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v EUIPO
The General Court dismissed Zündapp’s action against the EUIPO’s decision, which had upheld Compagnie des Montres Longines, Francillon SA’s opposition to Zündapp’s figurative mark. The dispute centered on the likelihood of confusion between Zündapp’s stylized shield mark and Longines’ earlier figurative mark depicting wings around a rectangle. The court found that while some similarity existed, it was insufficient to create a likelihood of confusion. The court considered the overall impression given by the signs, their distinctive elements, and the perception of the average consumer.
Case T-500/23: Piql AS v European Commission
The General Court upheld the European Commission’s decision to recover funds granted to Piql AS under the “Horizon 2020” program. The dispute concerned the eligibility of rental costs for PiqlReaders, with the Commission arguing that these costs exceeded depreciation costs and were therefore ineligible. The court found that Piql AS failed to demonstrate that a shorter depreciation period was warranted and that a profit margin for an affiliated entity could not be considered an eligible cost. The court also noted that Piql AS did not adequately demonstrate the machines were used for the project throughout the claimed rental period.
Case T-670/22: Li v EUIPO
The General Court dismissed an action against a decision of the EUIPO regarding the nullity of a registered EU design for a tote bag. The nullity was sought based on the argument that the design lacked uniqueness. The Court emphasized the requirement for uniqueness of a design and the need for consistency in the representation of the design. The court found that the EUIPO correctly examined the grounds for invalidity and confirmed that the EU design system is autonomous and independent of national systems.
Case T-337/22: BASF Agro SAS and Others v ECHA
The General Court partially annulled a decision by the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) regarding the compliance check of the registration of di-tert-butyl 1,1,4,4-tetramethyltetramethylene diperoxide. The court sided with the applicants, finding that ECHA made an error in requiring additional cohorts in an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS). The court found that ECHA’s decision to require additional cohorts (developmental neurotoxicity) was based on incorrect information and therefore annulled that part of the decision, while upholding the requirement for the basic EOGRTS.
Case T-226/22: YH v ECB
The General Court dismissed YH’s action against the European Central Bank’s (ECB) decision to block her acquisition of a qualifying holding in several German credit institutions. The ECB opposed the acquisition because YH did not meet the legal requirements regarding reputation, financial soundness, and the potential impact on prudential supervision. The judgment clarifies the application of existing EU legislation in the context of assessing the acquisition of qualifying holdings in credit institutions, emphasizing procedural requirements, the right to be heard, and the broad discretion afforded to the ECB in its prudential supervisory tasks.
Case T-392/23: Vassilev & Chisuse Law Firm v EUIPO
The General Court partly annulled a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks “VC LAW” and “vklaw” for a part of goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 45 of the Nice Agreement, which are aimed exclusively at the professional public. The court emphasized the level of attention and understanding of the English word “law” would differ between the general public and professional public and that for the professional public the word “law” is descriptive.
Case T-384/23: OQ v European Commission
The General Court annulled the decision of the selection board for the competition EPSO/AD/378/20, for Croatian-language lawyer-linguists, which refused to admit Mr. OQ to the next stage of the competition. It emphasized the obligation of EU institutions to fully comply with Tribunal judgments, including considering all relevant qualifications and experience of candidates, especially in the context of free movement of workers within the EU.
Case T-556/24: Amphora Wineries AG v EUIPO
The General Court dismissed Amphora Wineries AG’s action, confirming the Board of Appeal’s decision, which had annulled the Cancellation Division’s decision and rejected the revocation application. The case concerned an application for revocation of the EU figurative mark “CHAMPAGNE LOUIS LAMAR LAMAR REIMS”. The court held that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment of the evidence of genuine use of the contested mark.
Case T-358/23: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Commission
The General Court annulled the European Commission’s decision to reject PAN Europe’s request for an internal review of an implementing regulation that extended the approval period for dimoxystrobin. The court found that the Commission had misinterpreted Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the extension of approval periods for active substances, emphasizing that extensions should be temporary and exceptional, not automatic or systematic. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limits set for the renewal process and the need to balance the various interests at stake, giving precedence to the protection of human and animal health and the environment.
Case T-399/21: Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ v EUIPO
The General Court annulled the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, finding that it had erred in its assessment of the evidence of genuine use and imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the trade mark proprietor, Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ. The case revolved around a figurative mark “Làv”. The General Court emphasized that while the trade mark proprietor bears the burden of proving genuine use, the standard of proof should not be unreasonably high.
Case T-41/24: LGAI Technological Center, SA and jtsec Beyond IT Security, SL v European Union Agency for the Space Programme
The Court dismisses the applicant’s claims that EUSPA wrongly rejected their bid because they did not meet the condition that they are not controlled by a third country or entity from a third country, as required by Regulation (EU) 2021/696.
Case T-23/25: HH v European Commission
The General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the selection board’s decision in a general competition. HH failed to prove that irregularities during the tests were substantial or affected the results. The Court finds that the applicant’s claims regarding the composition and organization of the jury were inadmissible because they were not raised during the pre-litigation phase. Finally, the Court concludes that the selection board provided sufficient reasoning for its decision.
Case T-381/23: Pollinis France v European Commission
The General Court ruled in favor of Pollinis France, annulling the Commission’s decision. The court found that the Commission misinterpreted Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 by not adequately considering the factors for setting the extension period, failing to conduct a case-by-case analysis, and disregarding the overall length of the renewal procedure. The court emphasized that extensions should be temporary and exceptional, and the Commission must ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment.
Case T-405/23: Aurelia Stiftung v European Commission
The court annuls the Commission’s decision. The court clarifies that the Commission must conduct an objective and concrete analysis of the reasons for the delay in the renewal process. It emphasizes that the Commission must not only consider whether the applicant for renewal acted within the set time limits but also whether the applicant’s actions caused or contributed to the delay.
Case T-780/21: SD v European Medicines Agency
The court rejects the action, the court emphasizes that while there is a public interest in transparency, especially concerning medical products, this interest must be balanced against the need to protect the commercial interests of companies, particularly when dealing with novel technologies and commercially sensitive information. The court also clarifies the requirements for demonstrating an “overriding public interest” that would justify overriding the protection of commercial interests.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1353 of 1 July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2534 on household tumble dryers regarding information on repairability and clarifying some aspects of the measurement and calculation methods, the product information sheet, the technical documentation and the verification procedure
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2345 of 19 November 2025 renewing the approval of dazomet as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2333 of 19 November 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People’s Republic of China
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2341 of 13 November 2025 entering the geographical indication Boudin blanc de Liège (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2339 of 13 November 2025 on the approval of a Union amendment to the product specification of the protected geographical indication Дунавска равнина pursuant to of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2202 of 22 October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1434 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15, and correcting that Regulation
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2340 of 13 November 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Yenice Ihlamur Balı (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2349 of 14 November 2025 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2319 of 18 November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/527 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ARIEL chlorine Professional System 5 chlorine bleach for white wash
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2320 of 18 November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/633 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in the People’s Republic of China and in Indonesia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/2262 of 11 November 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/826 to clarify definitions and some aspects of the measurement conditions and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/2533 in relation to the methodology for calculating the average final moisture content, the identification and availability of spare parts and of repair information among other aspects
Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#DI contre Parlement européen.#Droit institutionnel – Membre du Parlement – Harcèlement moral – Décisions de la présidente du Parlement concluant à l’existence d’un harcèlement moral à l’égard d’un assistant parlementaire accrédité et infligeant un blâme à un membre du Parlement – Droits de la défense – Principe de bonne administration – Délais de procédure – Détournement de pouvoir – Notion de “harcèlement” – Article 12 bis du statut – Erreur d’appréciation.#Affaire T-173/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of November 19, 2025, in Case T-173/24, between DI (the applicant), a former Member of the European Parliament, and the European Parliament (the defendant). The case concerns a claim by DI for the annulment of two decisions by the President of the Parliament regarding a complaint of psychological harassment filed against him by his parliamentary assistant.
The judgment addresses DI’s request to annul the decisions of the President of the European Parliament, which found him guilty of psychological harassment and imposed a reprimand. DI raises five pleas in law, including violation of his rights of defense, failure to respect procedural deadlines, misuse of power, errors of assessment, and breach of confidentiality. The Court dismisses the action in its entirety.
The court examines five pleas raised by DI. It considers whether DI’s rights of defense and right to good administration were violated, whether procedural deadlines were respected, whether there was a misuse of power, whether the Parliament made errors of assessment, and whether there was a breach of confidentiality. The Court rejects all pleas, finding that DI’s rights were not violated, the procedural delays did not affect the outcome, there was no misuse of power, the Parliament’s assessment was correct, and there was no evidence of a breach of confidentiality.
The most important provisions of the act are those related to the rights of the defense, the respect of procedural deadlines, the concept of psychological harassment, and the assessment of evidence. The judgment clarifies the scope of these provisions in the context of a harassment complaint against a Member of the European Parliament.
Urteil des Gerichts (Siebte Kammer) vom 19. November 2025.#+pharma arzneimittel GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Widerspruchsverfahren – Anmeldung der Unionsbildmarke PlusQuam +PHARMA – Ältere nationale Wortmarke +PHARMA – Relative Eintragungshindernisse – Art. 8 Abs. 1 Buchst. b und Abs. 5 der Verordnung 2017/1001 – Durch Benutzung erhöhte Kennzeichnungskraft der älteren Marke – Bekanntheit – Benutzungsnachweis.#Rechtssache T-645/24.
This document is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a trademark dispute. The court annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had rejected an opposition by +pharma arzneimittel GmbH against the registration of the figurative mark PlusQuam +PHARMA by PlusQuam Pharma, SL. The opposition was based on the earlier Austrian word mark +PHARMA.
The structure of the judgment includes an introduction outlining the context of the dispute, the background of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the court. The court examines two pleas: violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (likelihood of confusion) and violation of Article 8(5) of the same regulation (protection of a trademark with a reputation). The court finds that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark through use and its reputation.
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the assessment of the enhanced distinctiveness of a trademark through use and the criteria for establishing the reputation of a trademark. The court clarifies that the Board of Appeal should have considered all relevant evidence, including how the mark was used in the market, and that even variations in the presentation of the mark do not necessarily negate its distinctiveness. The court also emphasizes the importance of considering the perception of the relevant public, including professional circles, when assessing the distinctiveness and reputation of a mark.
Arrêt du Tribunal (troisième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#Aboca SpA Soc. agr. contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de déchéance – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale ABOCA – Usage sérieux de la marque – Article 18 et article 58, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Preuve de l’usage sérieux – Appréciation des preuves.#Affaire T-543/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of the European Union, issued on November 19, 2025, in Case T-543/24, concerning the trademark dispute between Aboca SpA Soc. agr. and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Azienda Agroalimentare Grignano Srl as an intervening party.
The judgment deals with Aboca SpA Soc. agr.’s request to annul and reform the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which rejected Aboca’s request for revocation of the European Union trademark ABOCA, owned by Azienda Agroalimentare Grignano Srl, for “wines” in Class 33. The court examines whether the EUIPO correctly assessed the evidence of genuine use of the trademark ABOCA for wines, as required by Article 18 and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The court ultimately dismisses Aboca’s appeal, confirming that the trademark owner had demonstrated genuine use of the ABOCA trademark for wines.
The structure of the judgment includes an introduction outlining the request, the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, and the court’s legal reasoning. The court addresses Aboca’s single plea, which is divided into two parts: first, the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 in conjunction with Article 18 of the same regulation, and second, the improper reversal of the burden of proof regarding genuine use. The court examines the duration, location, significance, and nature of the use of the trademark, based on the evidence presented by Azienda Agroalimentare Grignano Srl, such as invoices, price lists, photographs, and website excerpts.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are those relating to the assessment of genuine use of a trademark. The court emphasizes that it is not about evaluating commercial success or controlling a company’s economic strategy, but about providing evidence of economic activity sufficient to exclude purely fictitious use of the trademark. The court confirms that the evidence presented by the trademark owner, including invoices showing sales of wine under the ABOCA brand, was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use. The court also clarifies that the use of a trademark in conjunction with other marks or descriptive terms does not necessarily alter its distinctive character.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.Amazon EU Sàrl, venant aux droits de Amazon Services Europe Sàrl v European Commission.Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Designation as a very large online platform – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Article 33(1) and (4) of Regulation 2022/2065 – Right to respect for private and family life – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to property – Equal treatment – Freedom of expression – Data protection.Case T-367/23.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding the application of the Digital Services Act (DSA), specifically Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. Amazon EU Sàrl is challenging the European Commission’s decision to designate Amazon Store as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the DSA. The court is examining the legality of several articles within the DSA, focusing on whether they infringe upon fundamental rights.
The judgment is structured around Amazon’s challenge to the Commission’s decision. It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including Amazon’s operation of the Amazon Store platform and the Commission’s preliminary findings that led to the VLOP designation. The judgment then details the forms of order sought by Amazon and the arguments presented by the various parties involved, including the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and consumer and e-commerce associations. The core of the judgment addresses three pleas in law raised by Amazon, each alleging the illegality of specific articles of Regulation 2022/2065.
Here are the main provisions and changes discussed in the judgment:
* **Article 33(1) of Regulation 2022/2065:** This article defines the criteria for designating a platform as a VLOP, specifically those with an average monthly active recipient (AMAR) of 45 million or more. Amazon argues this infringes upon various fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including the freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the principle of equal treatment, the freedom of expression, and the right to respect for private and family life. The court examines each of these claims in detail.
* **Articles 34 to 43 of Regulation 2022/2065:** These articles outline the additional systemic risk management obligations imposed on VLOPs. Amazon contends that these obligations are overly burdensome and inappropriate for marketplaces like Amazon Store.
* **Article 38 of Regulation 2022/2065:** This requires VLOPs using recommender systems to provide at least one option for each system that is not based on profiling. Amazon argues this infringes upon the freedom of expression and hinders its ability to offer relevant products to consumers.
* **Article 39 of Regulation 2022/2065:** This mandates VLOPs to compile and make publicly available a repository of information about the advertisements displayed on their platforms. Amazon claims this infringes upon the protection of confidential information and may cause commercial harm.
The most important provisions for practical use are those that define the obligations of VLOPs and the criteria for their designation. Article 33(1) is central as it determines which platforms are subject to the more stringent requirements of the DSA. Articles 34-43 detail the specific obligations related to risk management, transparency, and accountability that VLOPs must adhere to. These provisions have significant implications for how large online platforms operate within the EU, affecting their business models, content moderation policies, and data handling practices.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2025.Zündapp Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark representing a stylised shield with horizontal bars – International registration of the earlier figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Similarity of the signs at issue.Case T-3/25.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Zündapp Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH for a figurative mark representing a stylized shield with horizontal bars, which was opposed by Compagnie des Montres Longines, Francillon SA, based on their earlier international registration of a figurative mark depicting two extended wings around a rectangle. The court ultimately dismissed Zündapp’s action, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that while there was some similarity between the marks, it was not sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the details of the trade mark applications and the opposition proceedings. It then presents the forms of order sought by the applicant, Zündapp, and the defendant, EUIPO. The core of the judgment lies in its legal analysis, where the court examines the applicant’s pleas of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001, which concern the likelihood of confusion and the protection of well-known trade marks, respectively. The court assesses the relevant public, the comparison of goods, and the comparison of the signs, considering visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities. Finally, it addresses the likelihood of confusion and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark. The judgment concludes with a ruling on costs.
The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) and the criteria for comparing the signs at issue. The court emphasizes the need for a global assessment, taking into account the perception of the average consumer, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities between the signs. The judgment also clarifies that the assessment of similarity must be based on the overall impression given by the signs, considering their distinctive and dominant elements.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2025.Piql AS v European Commission.Grant agreement signed as part of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Ultra-secure data storage and long-term preservation of digital and analogue data – Decision to recover part of the grant – Enforceable decision – Article 299 TFEU – Article 110 of the EEA Agreement – Eligible costs – Article 122(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 – Article 23(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 – Concepts of ‘linked third parties’ and ‘affiliated entities’ – Admissibility of evidence.Case T-158/24.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the recovery of funds granted under the “Horizon 2020” Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. The case revolves around a grant agreement for a project concerning ultra-secure data storage and long-term preservation of digital and analogue data. The European Commission sought to recover part of the grant from Piql AS, a Norwegian company, specifically concerning the rental costs of certain machines called “PiqlReaders.”
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses an action brought by Piql AS against the Commission’s decision to recover EUR 245,161.28 plus default interest. The core of the dispute concerns whether the rental costs for 10 PiqlReaders, rented by Piql AS from Tronrud Engineering AS, were eligible costs under the grant agreement.
The General Court examines several aspects of the case:
1. **Admissibility of Evidence:** The court first addresses the admissibility of new evidence submitted by Piql AS, ultimately ruling it inadmissible due to a lack of justification for the delayed submission.
2. **Eligibility of Costs:** The court then delves into the substance of Piql AS’s claim, which alleges that the Commission incorrectly determined that the rental costs exceeded the depreciation costs of similar equipment, thus deeming them ineligible.
3. **Depreciation Period:** The court considers whether the Commission should have used a two-year depreciation period instead of five years for the PiqlReaders. The court finds that Piql AS failed to demonstrate that a shorter depreciation period was warranted, especially given the company’s own accounting practices.
4. **Depreciable Amount:** The court examines the appropriate depreciable amount for the PiqlReaders, specifically whether a profit margin for Tronrud Engineering (the lessor) should be included. The court determines that Tronrud Engineering was an entity affiliated with Piql AS, and therefore, a profit margin could not be considered an eligible cost.
5. **Rental Period:** Finally, the court addresses the rental period of the PiqlReaders, finding that Piql AS did not adequately demonstrate that the machines were used for the project throughout the claimed rental period.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provisions for understanding this judgment are those concerning the eligibility of costs under EU grant agreements, particularly within the “Horizon 2020” framework. Key takeaways include:
* **Sound Financial Management:** The Commission is obligated to ensure sound financial management and protect the EU’s financial interests.
* **Eligibility Criteria:** Costs must meet specific eligibility criteria outlined in the grant agreement, including being actually incurred, necessary for the project, identifiable, verifiable, and reasonable.
* **Depreciation Costs:** Depreciation costs for equipment are eligible if they are written off in accordance with international accounting standards and the beneficiary’s usual accounting practices.
* **Affiliated Entities:** The “no-profit” rule applies to entities affiliated with the beneficiary, meaning that profit margins charged by such entities may not be considered eligible costs.
* **Burden of Proof:** The beneficiary bears the burden of proving that costs are eligible and that deviations from usual accounting practices are justified.
Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#Heinrich Sieber & Co. GmbH & Co. KG contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Dessin ou modèle de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Dessin ou modèle de l’Union européenne enregistré représentant un fourre-tout – Motif de nullité – Absence d’unicité du dessin ou modèle – Article 3, sous a), et article 25, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (CE) no 6/2002 dans sa version antérieure au règlement (UE) 2024/2822 – Cohérence des vues.#Affaire T-641/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) concerning an action brought against a decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the nullity of a registered EU design. The design in question represents a tote bag, and the nullity was sought based on the argument that the design lacked uniqueness.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. It starts with an introduction outlining the parties involved and the purpose of the action.
2. It then details the background of the dispute, including the application for the design, the request for nullity, and the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
3. Next, it presents the arguments of the parties, with the applicant seeking annulment of the contested decision and the EUIPO and the intervener requesting dismissal of the action.
4. The judgment then proceeds to the legal analysis, examining the interpretation of the applicant’s claims and addressing the substantive issues raised.
5. It considers three pleas put forward by the applicant: violation of Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 (lack of uniqueness), violation of Article 53(1) of the same regulation (failure to properly examine the ground for invalidity), and violation of Article 85(1) of the regulation (incorrect interpretation of a judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice).
6. The Court rejects all three pleas and dismisses the action.
7. Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs, ordering the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the intervener, while the EUIPO is to bear its own costs.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:
* The interpretation of Article 3(a) and Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, concerning the definition of a design and the grounds for invalidity, respectively. The Court clarifies the requirement for uniqueness of a design and the need for consistency of views in the representation of the design.
* The examination of the coherence of the views representing the design. The Court emphasizes that the views must show the appearance of a single product and allow clear identification of the design. Minor divergences between the views are acceptable if they can be reconciled within the concept of a single design.
* The analysis of the EUIPO’s obligation to examine the grounds for invalidity. The Court confirms that the EUIPO must verify the merits of the grounds invoked, but there is no specific requirement for the content or extent of the examination.
* The clarification that the EU design system is autonomous and independent of national systems. Decisions of national courts are not binding on the EUIPO unless they have the authority of res judicata and concern the same parties, object, and cause.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.Nouryon Functional Chemicals BV and Others v European Chemicals Agency.REACH – Substance di-tert-butyl 1,1,4,4-tetramethyltetramethylene diperoxide – Compliance check of registrations – Request for additional toxicity studies – Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Manifest error of assessment – Error of fact – Proportionality – Decision of the Board of Appeal of ECHA – Admissibility of the arguments directed against the decision of ECHA.Case T-1122/23.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over a decision by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. The case revolves around a substance called di-tert-butyl 1,1,4,4-tetramethyltetramethylene diperoxide and the compliance check of its registration. The applicants, several chemical companies, are challenging ECHA’s decision requiring them to conduct additional toxicity studies, specifically an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS).
The structure of the judgment is as follows: It starts with the background of the dispute, outlining the initial decision by ECHA, the appeal to the Board of Appeal, and the contested decision. Then, it presents the forms of order sought by the applicants and the response from ECHA. The judgment proceeds to analyze the applicants’ pleas, which include allegations of infringement of the REACH Regulation, the principle of proportionality, and manifest errors of assessment by ECHA. The court examines each plea in detail, considering arguments from both sides.
The most important provision of the act is the annulment of the Board of Appeal’s decision in part. The court sided with the applicants, specifically regarding the requirement to include additional cohorts 2A and 2B (developmental neurotoxicity) in the EOGRTS. The court found that ECHA made an error in assessing the facts related to the OECD TG 408 study, particularly concerning the number of animals in the control group that exhibited certain effects. This error led the court to conclude that the decision requiring the additional cohorts was based on incorrect information and therefore annulled that part of the decision. The court dismissed the remainder of the action, meaning the requirement for the basic EOGRTS remains.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.YH v European Central Bank.Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Directive 2013/36/EU – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB – Assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings – Opposition to the acquisition of a qualifying holding – Right to be heard – Concept of ‘qualifying holding’ – Reputation and professional competence of the proposed acquirer – Rights protected by the Charter – Proportionality.Case T-366/23.
This judgment concerns a legal challenge by YH against the European Central Bank’s (ECB) decision to block her acquisition of a qualifying holding in several German credit institutions, including M.M. Warburg & Co. The ECB opposed the acquisition, arguing that YH did not meet the legal requirements for acquiring such a holding, specifically regarding her reputation, financial soundness, and the potential impact on the effective prudential supervision of the target institutions. The General Court ultimately dismissed YH’s action, upholding the ECB’s decision.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Details the ownership structure of the target institutions, the proposed acquisition, and the regulatory process leading to the ECB’s decision.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s (YH) request to annul the ECB’s decision and the ECB’s request to dismiss the action.
* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment, addressing each of YH’s seven pleas in law:
1. Infringement of the rules of procedure in the qualifying holding procedure.
2. Infringement of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons.
3. Failure to examine the relevant facts and to adopt the decision solely on a sufficiently solid factual basis.
4. Incorrect interpretation and application by the ECB of the concept of a ‘qualifying holding’.
5. Incorrect interpretation and application by the ECB of the criteria for assessing the proposed acquirer.
6. Infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
7. Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.
**Main Provisions and Changes:**
The judgment primarily interprets and applies existing EU legislation, including:
* Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV Directive): Governs access to the activity of credit institutions and their prudential supervision.
* Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (SSM Regulation): Confers specific supervisory tasks on the ECB.
* Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (SSM Framework Regulation): Establishes the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism.
* Regulation (EU) No 575/2013: prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms.
The judgment does not introduce new legislation but clarifies the application of existing rules in the context of assessing the acquisition of qualifying holdings in credit institutions.
**Most Important Provisions for Use:**
Several aspects of the judgment are particularly important:
* **Procedural Requirements:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in the assessment of qualifying holdings, including the timely acknowledgment of notifications and the calculation of assessment periods.
* **Right to Be Heard:** The judgment reaffirms the importance of the right to be heard in administrative procedures and clarifies the extent to which the ECB must consider the views of the proposed acquirer.
* **Assessment Criteria:** The judgment provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the criteria for assessing proposed acquirers, including reputation, financial soundness, and the potential impact on prudential supervision.
* **Discretion of the ECB:** The judgment recognizes the broad discretion afforded to the ECB in the exercise of its prudential supervisory tasks, while also emphasizing the need for the ECB to carefully and impartially examine all relevant aspects of the situation.
* **Charter of Fundamental Rights:** The judgment addresses several claims of infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, clarifying the scope and application of those rights in the context of the assessment of qualifying holdings.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 November 2025.Vassilev & Chisuse Law Firm v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark VC LAW – Earlier EU word mark vklaw – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-524/24.
This judgment concerns a dispute between two law firms, Vassilev & Chisuse Law Firm (applicant) and Vayanos Kostopoulos Law Firm (intervener), regarding the registration of an EU trade mark. The applicant sought to register a figurative sign “VC LAW,” but the intervener opposed, citing their earlier EU word mark “vklaw.” The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal sided with the intervener, finding a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The applicant then appealed to the General Court, seeking annulment and alteration of the Board of Appeal’s decision.
The General Court partly annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks “VC LAW” and “vklaw” for a part of goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 45 of the Nice Agreement, which are aimed exclusively at the professional public.
The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. **Background to the dispute:** Describes the facts that led to the dispute.
2. **Forms of order sought:** Describes the orders sought by the applicant and the positions of EUIPO and the intervener.
3. **Law:** Contains the legal reasoning of the Court.
* Admissibility of the applicant’s claim that the case should be remitted back to EUIPO
* The claims for annulment
* The relevant public
* The comparison of the signs
* The distinctive and dominant elements
* Visual comparison
* Phonetic comparison
* Conceptual comparison
* The likelihood of confusion
* The claim for alteration
* Costs
4. **Operative part:** Contains the decision of the Court.
The key provisions of the judgment revolve around the assessment of the likelihood of confusion, considering the relevant public, the similarity of the marks, and the goods/services involved. The court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors.
The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the relevant public and the comparison of the signs. The court distinguished between the general public and the professional public, noting that the level of attention and understanding of the English word “law” would differ between these groups. For the professional public, the court found that the word “law” is descriptive and, therefore, carries less weight in the overall assessment of similarity.
Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#OQ contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Recrutement – Avis de concours – Concours général EPSO/AD/378/20 – Décision de ne pas admettre le requérant à l’étape suivante du concours – Exécution d’un arrêt du Tribunal – Libre circulation des travailleurs.#Affaire T-384/23.
This document is a judgment of the European Union Tribunal (Ninth Chamber) in Case T-384/23, concerning a dispute between Mr. OQ, the applicant, and the European Commission, the defendant. The judgment addresses the annulment of the decision by the selection board (jury) of a competition, EPSO/AD/378/20, for Croatian-language lawyer-linguists, which refused to admit Mr. OQ to the next stage of the competition.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including Mr. OQ’s qualifications, his previous professional experience, and the specific requirements of the competition notice, particularly regarding the required Croatian law degrees.
* It details the initial rejection of Mr. OQ’s application, his subsequent appeal, and the Tribunal’s previous judgment in Case T-713/20, which annulled the initial rejection decision. The Tribunal had previously found that the selection board had not adequately considered Mr. OQ’s qualifications and experience in light of Article 45 TFEU (free movement of workers).
* The core of the current judgment revolves around whether the Commission properly executed the Tribunal’s previous judgment. The Tribunal finds that the Commission failed to fully comply with its obligations under Article 266 TFEU, which requires the institution to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.
* The Tribunal emphasizes that the selection board was required to consider all of Mr. OQ’s qualifications, including diplomas, certificates, and other qualifications, not just his professional experience. The letter sent by the jury only requested documents related to professional experience, which the Tribunal found to be insufficient.
* Ultimately, the Tribunal annuls the selection board’s decision of May 15, 2023, rejecting Mr. OQ’s request for review and refusing to admit him to the next stage of the competition. The Commission is ordered to bear the costs.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* The key takeaway from this judgment is the emphasis on the obligation of EU institutions to fully comply with Tribunal judgments, including considering all relevant qualifications and experience of candidates in recruitment processes, especially in the context of free movement of workers within the EU.
* The judgment clarifies that when executing a judgment, the institution must not only adhere to the operative part but also to the reasoning that led to the decision.
* The judgment reinforces the principle that selection boards in EU recruitment competitions must take into account the entirety of a candidate’s qualifications and experience, particularly when the candidate relies on Article 45 TFEU to demonstrate that they possess the required qualifications through alternative means.
* This case highlights the importance of EU institutions to consider the principles of free movement of workers when assessing qualifications for recruitment competitions.
Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#Amphora Wineries AG contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de déchéance – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative CHAMPAGNE LOUIS LAMAR LAMAR REIMS – Qualité pour agir devant la chambre de recours – Usage sérieux de la marque – Article 18 et article 58, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001.#Affaire T-556/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of November 19, 2025, in Case T-556/24, between Amphora Wineries AG and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Bernabei Liquori Srl as an intervener. The case concerns an application for revocation of the EU figurative mark “CHAMPAGNE LOUIS LAMAR LAMAR REIMS” and the decision of the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal. The General Court dismisses Amphora Wineries AG’s action, confirming the Board of Appeal’s decision, which had annulled the Cancellation Division’s decision and rejected the revocation application. The court finds that the Board of Appeal did not err in its assessment of the evidence of genuine use of the contested mark.
The structure of the judgment includes a summary of the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the General Court. The court examines two pleas raised by Amphora Wineries AG: (1) insufficient reasoning and violation of Article 20 of Regulation 2017/1001, and (2) violation of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of the same regulation. The court rejects both pleas, finding that the Board of Appeal provided sufficient reasoning and correctly assessed the evidence of genuine use of the mark. The judgment does not refer to previous versions of the act.
The most important provisions for the use of this act are the interpretations of Article 20 (transfer of EU trademarks), Article 58(1)(a) (revocation for non-use), and Article 18 (use by consent) of Regulation 2017/1001. The court clarifies the conditions under which a trademark can be transferred, the evidence required to demonstrate genuine use of a trademark, and the circumstances under which use by a third party can be attributed to the trademark owner. The judgment also clarifies the EUIPO’s power to consider evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal, as outlined in Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 27(4) of Regulation 2018/625.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Commission.Plant protection products – Active substance dimoxystrobin – Application for renewal of an active substance – Extension of approval period – Length of the extension – Request for internal review – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Decision to reject the request – Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.Case T-412/22.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the active substance dimoxystrobin used in plant protection products. The Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) challenged the European Commission’s decision to reject its request for an internal review of an implementing regulation that extended the approval period for dimoxystrobin. The court annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that it had misinterpreted Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the extension of approval periods for active substances.
The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the history of dimoxystrobin’s approval and subsequent extensions, as well as PAN Europe’s request for internal review and the Commission’s rejection.
2. **Forms of order sought:** It summarizes the requests of PAN Europe (applicant) and the Commission, supported by the European Parliament, the Council, and CropLife Europe (interveners).
3. **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the court. It addresses the admissibility of the action, the interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009, and the arguments presented by both parties.
4. **Costs:** It determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are:
* The court found that the Commission misinterpreted Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009 by granting successive extensions to the approval period of dimoxystrobin without properly assessing the specific circumstances of the case.
* The court emphasized that extensions should be temporary and exceptional, not automatic or systematic.
* The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the time limits set for the renewal process and the need to balance the various interests at stake, giving precedence to the protection of human and animal health and the environment.
The most important provisions of the act for its use are:
* The interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009, which clarifies the conditions under which extensions of approval periods for active substances can be granted.
* The emphasis on the temporary and exceptional nature of extensions, as well as the need for a case-by-case assessment.
* The importance of adhering to the time limits set for the renewal process and prioritizing the protection of human and animal health and the environment.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2025.Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark Làv – Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use – Assessment of the evidence – Unreasonable or excessive burden of proof – Principle of good administration – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Case T-563/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the revocation of an EU trade mark. The case revolves around a figurative mark “Làv” owned by Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ, a Turkish company. Olav GmbH, a German company, filed for revocation of the mark based on the argument that it had not been genuinely used within a continuous five-year period.
The structure of the judgment involves the General Court examining the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which had annulled the Cancellation Division’s initial decision. The Cancellation Division had partially upheld the trade mark, but the Board of Appeal reversed this, finding that the evidence provided by Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ was insufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the “Làv” mark. The General Court reviews the evidence, the arguments of both parties, and the reasoning of the Board of Appeal to determine whether the Board’s decision was correct.
The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the proof of genuine use of a trade mark. The General Court emphasizes that while the trade mark proprietor bears the burden of proving genuine use, the standard of proof should not be unreasonably high. The Court found that the Board of Appeal had imposed an excessive burden of proof on Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ by requiring a clear, explained, and shown link between the invoice codes and the goods covered by the trade mark. The General Court also found contradictions in the Board of Appeal’s reasoning and errors in its assessment of the evidence. Ultimately, the General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that it had erred in its assessment of the evidence and imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the trade mark proprietor.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 November 2025.Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark Lav – Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use – Assessment of the evidence – Unreasonable or excessive burden of proof – Principle of good administration – Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Case T-564/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case concerns the revocation of the EU figurative mark “Lav” due to an alleged lack of genuine use.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses an action brought by Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
* The core issue is whether the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal correctly assessed the evidence provided by Gürok Turizm ve Madencilik AŞ to demonstrate genuine use of the “Lav” trade mark for goods in Class 21 (household or kitchen utensils and containers; glassware, porcelain and earthenware).
* The General Court examines the evidence, including website screenshots, photos of packaging, invoices, packing lists, commercial documentation, and catalogues.
* The Court analyzes whether the Board of Appeal imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the trade mark holder to demonstrate genuine use.
* The judgment refers to relevant articles of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark, as well as Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
**Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**
* The General Court annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal, finding that it made several errors in its assessment of the evidence.
* The Court finds contradictions in the Board of Appeal’s reasoning, particularly regarding the quality of the evidence and the territorial scope of use.
* The Court clarifies that genuine use of a trade mark does not necessarily require proof of sales to end consumers, as use in inter-corporate relations can also be relevant.
* The Court emphasizes that a diligent comparison of product codes on goods, in catalogues, and on invoices is a valid method of assessing genuine use.
* The Court concludes that the Board of Appeal imposed an excessive requirement for the quality of evidence and an unreasonable burden of proof on the trade mark holder.
* The judgment highlights that imposing an unreasonable burden of proof can breach the right to good administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#LGAI Technological Center, SA et jtsec Beyond IT Security, SL contre Agence de l’Union européenne pour le programme spatial.#Marchés publics de services – Procédure d’appel d’offres – Services d’accréditation de sécurité – Rejet de l’offre d’un soumissionnaire – Règlement (UE) 2021/696 – Programme spatial – Condition selon laquelle l’entité juridique éligible n’est pas soumise au contrôle d’un pays tiers ou d’une entité de pays tiers – Droit d’être entendu – Obligation de motivation – Obligation d’examen des offres conforme aux critères énoncés dans les documents de marché – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Proportionnalité.#Affaire T-41/24.
Here’s a breakdown of the Tribunal’s decision in Case T-41/24:
1. **Essence of the Act:** This is a judgment by the EU General Court regarding a public procurement procedure initiated by the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA). The case concerns the rejection of a tender submitted by LGAI Technological Center, SA and jtsec Beyond IT Security, SL for security accreditation services. The Court dismisses the applicant’s claims that EUSPA wrongly rejected their bid because they did not meet the condition that they are not controlled by a third country or entity from a third country, as required by Regulation (EU) 2021/696.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses two decisions by EUSPA: one from January 16, 2024, and another from February 22, 2024, both rejecting the tender of LGAI and jtsec.
* The applicants raised five pleas against the decision, alleging violations of their right to be heard, failure to provide adequate reasoning, failure to assess the offers according to the criteria in the tender documents, manifest error in the application of the “no control” condition, and violation of the principle of proportionality.
* The Court first addresses the initial decision, which EUSPA had “annulled.” The Court declares that there is no longer a reason to rule on the action against the first decision because it was withdrawn.
* The Court then examines each of the five pleas raised by the applicants concerning the second decision. It dismisses each of them, finding no violation of the applicant’s rights or errors in EUSPA’s assessment.
* The Court upholds EUSPA’s interpretation and application of the “no control” condition, finding that EUSPA was correct in determining that the applicants did not meet this condition because they were subject to potential control by third-country entities.
3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Interpretation of “Control”:** The judgment clarifies that the “no control” condition in Regulation (EU) 2021/696 refers to the *capacity* to exercise decisive influence over a legal entity, not necessarily whether that influence is actively exerted.
* **Third-Country Influence:** The judgment confirms that the EU can restrict participation in space program contracts to ensure that entities are not subject to undue influence from third countries, especially when security interests are at stake.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment affirms that the principle of proportionality does not require the EU to seek explanations or apply derogation mechanisms if the tenderer does not meet the essential requirements of the tender, especially when those requirements relate to security.
* **Right to be Heard:** The judgment clarifies that the right to be heard is ensured during the tender process through the submission of the offer and the possibility to ask for clarifications regarding the tender specifications.
* **Obligation of motivation:** The Court confirms that the EUSPA fulfilled its obligation to communicate the reasons for rejecting the applicant’s offer.
Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 19 novembre 2025.#HH contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Recrutement – Avis de concours – Concours général EPSO/AD/400/22 – Décision de ne pas inscrire le nom du requérant sur la liste de réserve – Égalité de traitement – Principe de bonne administration – Devoir de sollicitude – Stabilité de la composition du jury – Obligation de motivation.#Affaire T-23/25.
This is a judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on November 19, 2025, in Case T-23/25, between HH (the applicant) and the European Commission (the defendant). The judgment concerns a decision by the selection board in a general competition EPSO/AD/400/22 not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of defense industry and space.
The structure of the judgment includes a review of the facts, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the Court. The applicant sought the annulment of the selection board’s decision, alleging violations of the competition notice, the principle of equal treatment, the Staff Regulations, the principle of good administration, and the duty of care, as well as a failure to provide adequate reasoning for the decision. The Court dismisses the action in its entirety, finding that the applicant’s arguments are either unfounded or inadmissible.
The main provisions of the judgment revolve around the Court’s assessment of the applicant’s claims. The Court finds that the applicant failed to prove that irregularities during the tests were substantial or affected the results. It also rejects the claim that some candidates on the reserve list did not meet the required professional experience, as the applicant’s evidence from LinkedIn profiles did not invalidate the jury’s assessment. The Court also finds that the applicant’s claims regarding the composition and organization of the jury were inadmissible because they were not raised during the pre-litigation phase. Finally, the Court concludes that the selection board provided sufficient reasoning for its decision.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.Pollinis France v European Commission.Plant protection products – Active substance boscalid – Application for renewal of an active substance – Extension of approval period – Delay in the renewal procedure – Reasons beyond the control of the applicant – Request for internal review – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Decision to reject the request – Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.Case T-94/23.
This judgment concerns the annulment of the European Commission’s decision to reject a request for internal review regarding the extension of the approval period for the active substance boscalid, used in plant protection products. The case was brought by Pollinis France, a non-profit organization focused on environmental protection, against the Commission. The General Court ruled in favor of Pollinis France, annulling the Commission’s decision.
The structure of the judgment involves an examination of several pleas raised by Pollinis France, primarily focusing on the interpretation and application of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which concerns the extension of approval periods for active substances in plant protection products. The court assesses whether the Commission correctly interpreted and applied the conditions for extending the approval period, particularly concerning reasons beyond the applicant’s control and the duration of the extension. The judgment also considers the precautionary principle and its relevance to the decision-making process.
The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009. The court found that the Commission misinterpreted this article by not adequately considering the factors for setting the extension period, failing to conduct a case-by-case analysis, and disregarding the overall length of the renewal procedure. The court emphasized that extensions should be temporary and exceptional, and the Commission must ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment. The judgment clarifies the criteria for determining whether delays are beyond the control of the applicant and requires a more thorough assessment of the applicant’s role in the renewal procedure.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.Aurelia Stiftung v European Commission.Plant protection products – Active substance glyphosate – Application for renewal of an active substance – Extension of approval period – Delay in the renewal procedure – Reasons beyond the control of the applicant – Request for internal review – Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Decision to reject the request – Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.Case T-565/23.
This is the judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding the active substance glyphosate, commonly used in herbicides. The Aurelia Stiftung, an environmental protection organization, sought the annulment of the European Commission’s decision rejecting its request for an internal review of the extension of glyphosate’s approval period. The court annuls the Commission’s decision.
The judgment revolves around the interpretation and application of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which allows for the extension of the approval period of an active substance if the renewal process is delayed for reasons beyond the applicant’s control. The applicant, Aurelia Stiftung, argued that the Commission erred in concluding that the delays in the renewal of glyphosate’s approval were beyond the control of the renewal applicant (Bayer).
The General Court’s decision is structured as follows:
1. It addresses the background of the dispute, including previous regulations and extensions of glyphosate’s approval.
2. It examines the forms of order sought by the parties.
3. It assesses the applicant’s continuing legal interest in bringing proceedings, despite a subsequent regulation renewing glyphosate’s approval.
4. It considers the admissibility of the action, specifically the applicant’s standing to bring proceedings as an environmental organization.
5. It analyzes the core issue: the misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009, focusing on the role of the applicant for renewal in the delays.
6. Finally, it addresses the allocation of costs.
The most important provision of the judgment is its interpretation of Article 17 of Regulation No 1107/2009. The court clarifies that the Commission must conduct an objective and concrete analysis of the reasons for the delay in the renewal process. It emphasizes that the Commission must not only consider whether the applicant for renewal acted within the set time limits but also whether the applicant’s actions caused or contributed to the delay. The court finds that the Commission failed to adequately scrutinize the role of the applicant for renewal in the delays, thus erring in its interpretation of Article 17.
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 19 November 2025.SD v European Medicines Agency.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – EMA documents concerning the messenger RNA vaccine against COVID-19 Comirnaty – Conditional marketing authorisation – Specific obligations – Responses provided by the authorisation holder to the EMA – Partial refusal to grant access – Communication of partially redacted documents after notification of the contested decision – Action for annulment – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Correcting decision – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate – Protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Document disseminated on the internet following a cyberattack – Overriding public interest.Case T-623/22.
This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding access to documents held by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The case revolves around a request for access to EMA documents concerning the Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine, specifically data related to the conditional marketing authorization granted to BioNTech. The applicant, SD, sought annulment of the EMA’s decision to partially refuse access to these documents.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Describes the initial request for documents, the EMA’s partial refusal, and the subsequent challenge by the applicant. The documents at issue are responses to specific obligations imposed on BioNTech as part of the conditional marketing authorization.
* **Facts Subsequent to the Bringing of the Action:** Details how the applicant discovered similar information online that the EMA had redacted. This led the EMA to issue a “correcting decision,” disclosing some of the previously redacted material.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s request for the court to annul the EMA’s decision and order the EMA to pay costs. The EMA and the interveners (BioNTech) requested the court to dismiss the action and order the applicant to pay the costs.
* **Law:** This section contains the court’s legal reasoning and decision.
* **Admissibility:** The court first addresses whether the case is admissible, focusing on the time limit for bringing the action and the impact of the EMA’s correcting decision. The court found that the action was brought in time. However, the court also found that the action had become devoid of purpose in so far as it concerned access to the data disclosed after correction.
* **Substance:** The court then examines the substance of the applicant’s claims, focusing on two pleas:
* **First Plea:** The EMA wrongly considered that partial redaction was justified to protect BioNTech’s commercial interests. The court rejects this plea, finding that the EMA adequately justified the need to protect commercially sensitive information.
* **Second Plea:** The EMA failed to recognize an overriding public interest in disclosure. The court also rejects this plea, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate a specific overriding public interest that would outweigh the need to protect commercial interests.
* **Costs:** The court orders the EMA to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicant’s costs. The court orders SD to bear half of his own costs. The court orders BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH to bear their own costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the balance between transparency and the protection of commercial interests. The court emphasizes that while there is a public interest in transparency, especially concerning medical products, this interest must be balanced against the need to protect the commercial interests of companies, particularly when dealing with novel technologies and commercially sensitive information. The judgment also clarifies the requirements for demonstrating an “overriding public interest” that would justify overriding the protection of commercial interests. The court also highlights the importance of the applicant to demonstrate the specific circumstances justifying the disclosure of specific data.
The judgment also addresses the impact of information leaks and cyberattacks on the accessibility of documents. The court states that unauthorized disclosure of a document does not automatically grant public access to it if it is otherwise protected by exceptions under Regulation No 1049/2001.
