Review of the EU legislation for 18/12/2025

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1774

This regulation refines the investment guidelines under the InvestEU Fund to better support the EU’s defence industry. It simplifies criteria for strategic investments in defence, clarifies eligibility for entities controlled by non-associated third countries with Member State-approved guarantees, and adjusts limitations on suppliers and subcontractors. The goal is to streamline investments while safeguarding EU security interests.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2553

This regulation updates the Union authorization for the biocidal product ‘ClearKlens product based on IPA’. It modifies the lists of manufacturers of the product and its active substance (Propan-2-ol). It also replaces the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1147 with a new Annex containing a consolidated summary of biocidal product characteristics.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2556

This regulation authorizes a specific preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase as a feed additive for certain poultry categories, including chickens for laying or breeding, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening, and minor poultry species for laying or breeding. It also amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1090 to modify the terms of authorization for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The regulation specifies the composition of the additive, target animal species, and conditions of use, including storage and user safety requirements. Minimum content for active substances is outlined, and changes are made for chickens raised for fattening and laying.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2592

This regulation establishes rules for fair use policies and anti-fraud measures regarding intra-EU communications. Providers can apply safeguards for excessive usage, defining ‘typical usage’ based on BEREC benchmarks. Anti-fraud measures are allowed, with notification to national authorities. Consumers must be informed of fair use terms, usage limits, and have appeal rights. BEREC updates the benchmark, valid until 2027.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2530

This regulation details specific requirements for qualified trust service providers (QTSPs) concerning notifications to supervisory bodies, risk management, and termination plans, ensuring security and continuity of qualified trust services. It mandates notifications for significant service changes, applies risk management requirements from Regulation 2025/2160, and sets detailed requirements for termination plans. The regulation also references specific standards and specifications in its annex.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2536

This regulation cancels the registration of the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) ‘Coteaux de Narbonne’. The cancellation was requested by France, and no opposition was received. As a result, the name ‘Coteaux de Narbonne’ will be removed from the Union register of geographical indications.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2537

This regulation designates a consortium of laboratories, led by Erasmus Medical Center, as the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for public health on respiratory viruses until December 18, 2032. The regulation details the EURL’s responsibilities and tasks, including supporting national reference laboratories, promoting good practices in diagnostics and testing, and providing reference services for specific respiratory viruses. The EURL will also coordinate with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and other relevant organizations.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2538

This regulation cancels the registration of the protected geographical indication (PGI) ‘Cité de Carcassonne’. The cancellation was requested by France, and the application was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Since no opposition was received, the name ‘Cité de Carcassonne’ has been removed from the Union register of geographical indications.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2599

This regulation opens a duty-free tariff quota for certain processed agricultural goods originating in Norway for 2026. It defines eligible goods with their CN and TARIC codes, their description and sets a duty of 0.047 EUR/litre for import quantities exceeding the quota, managed by the Commission.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2531

This regulation establishes reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic ledgers, ensuring data integrity, chronological ordering, and reliability. It provides common specifications for recording electronic data, promoting trust and security in electronic transactions. Key elements covered are data origin authentication, cryptographic controls, network security, and monitoring.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2532

This regulation establishes rules for qualified electronic archiving services, aiming to preserve the integrity, confidentiality, and proof of origin of electronic data over time. It mandates the continued trustworthiness of electronic signatures and seals, adhering to standards like CEN/TS 18170:2025. The standards address cryptographic controls, network security, and reliable timestamps, with emphasis on long-term security and regulatory compliance.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2527

This regulation establishes reference standards for qualified certificates for website authentication, ensuring trust and transparency in online interactions. The standards support various certificate types, accommodating diverse technical needs while maintaining interoperability. Qualified certificates must adhere to specific ETSI standards outlined in the Annex, distinguished by their use case (e.g., transport layer security authentication).

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2526

This regulation corrects the designation of an existing EU reference laboratory and designates new EU reference laboratories for in vitro diagnostic medical devices, specifically for detecting parasite infection markers and blood grouping markers. It amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2713 to include these new designations. SERMAS designation corrected to include associated foundations. It will apply from 1 May 2026 for the newly designated laboratories.

General Court Judgment in Case T-782/23

The General Court annuls an EUIPO Board of Appeal decision in a trademark dispute between Indra Sistemas, SA, and Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal Lda. The case concerns the likelihood of confusion between the mark “iTEC SKYNEX” and the earlier mark “SKYNET.” The court found that the Board of Appeal failed to adequately explain its reasoning regarding the relevant public’s understanding of the word “sky,” violating the requirement to provide a clear and consistent statement of reasons.

General Court Judgment in Case T-671/24

The General Court dismisses a claim by GY against the European Commission, upholding the Commission’s refusal to grant a double allowance for a dependent child with a long-term illness. The court found that the applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that his son’s illness imposed heavy burdens justifying the double allowance.

General Court Judgment in Cases T-657/23, T-672/23, T-675/23, T-690/23, T-697/23, T-700/23, T-701/23, T-714/23, T-739/23 and T-859/23

The General Court rejects actions brought by former MEPs against the European Parliament, concerning changes to the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme (AVPS), including a reduction in pension amounts. The court finds that the Parliament’s decision did not violate acquired rights, legitimate expectations, or the principle of legal certainty. The Court also upheld the confidentiality of the Parliament’s internal legal advice.

General Court Judgment in Case T-483/24

The General Court rejects the claim by FE, a former MEP, against the European Parliament, finding that modifications to the voluntary supplementary pension scheme (VSPS) did not violate acquired rights, legal certainty, or legitimate expectations. The court also upheld the confidentiality of the Parliament’s internal legal advice, concluding that the measures were proportionate to safeguarding the VSPS.

General Court Judgment in Case T-412/23

The General Court dismisses Freixenet’s appeal against the EUIPO’s decision, upholding the finding of a likelihood of confusion between Freixenet’s figurative trademark “CB” and Alvear’s earlier Spanish word mark “C.B.” for wines. The court found that Alvear provided sufficient evidence of genuine use of its earlier mark and confirmed the likelihood of confusion between the trademarks. Court decided that the fees should be paid by each side independently

General Court Judgment in Case T-161/23

The General Court upholds the EUIPO’s decision to reject Neoperl AG’s application to register a tactile position mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert. The court found that the mark lacked distinctive character and would not allow consumers to distinguish the products of Neoperl from those of other companies.

General Court Judgment in Case T-268/24

The General Court dismisses Igor Rotenberg’s challenge to the EU Council’s decision to maintain his name on the sanctions list related to Ukraine. The court finds that the Council provided sufficient reasoning, that there was no manifest error of assessment, and that the measures were proportionate, rejecting Rotenberg’s claims of illegality and violation of fundamental rights. It clarifies the “benefitting” and evidentiary requirements in sanctions contexts.

General Court Judgment in Case T-356/23

The General Court is assessing the Council’s decisions and related regulations to maintain Melnichenko’s name on the EU’s sanctions list. The court is scrutinizing key considerations which includes Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, which defines the criteria for designating individuals subject to restrictive measures, specifically targeting leading businesspersons operating in Russia and those involved in sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government. The court’s analysis focuses on what constitutes a “leading businessperson,” their links to the Russian government, proportionality, and fundamental rights. It will scrutinize whether the Council’s reasoning for including Melnichenko on the list is supported by sufficient evidence.

General Court Judgment in Case T-1113/23

The General Court upholds the EU Council’s decision to maintain Aleksandra Melnichenko on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures. The court finds that the Council had a sufficient factual basis for its decisions and that the restrictive measures are proportionate, rejecting Ms. Melnichenko’s claims of illegality and infringement of fundamental rights. The court clarifies the interpretation and application of the criteria used to impose sanctions, particularly the concept of “benefiting from a leading businessperson operating in Russia.”

General Court Judgment in Case T-100/25

The General Court dismisses the action by Evroins inshurans grup AD against EIOPA, concerning EIOPA’s refusal to grant confidential treatment to a decision. The court clarifies it lacks power to direct EU bodies and emphasizes the burden lies on the requester to justify confidential treatment, affirming that information is confidential only if its disclosure causes serious harm and the harmed interests merit protection.

General Court Judgment in Case T-53/23

The General Court annuls the decision of the jury not to include CB on the reserve list for the recruitment of technicians AST 3 in the field of “laboratory technicians” EPSO/AST/150/21. The court found a violation of the principle of equal treatment due to the instability of the jury and inadequate coordination measures, emphasizing the need for compensatory actions to ensure consistent candidate evaluation.

General Court Judgment in Case T-536/24

The General Court rejects Schöffel Sportbekleidung GmbH’s appeal, upholding the EUIPO’s decision that the request for cancellation of the EU trademark “Schöffel Ich bin raus.” due to lack of genuine use did not constitute an abuse of law. The court emphasized that any natural or legal person may submit a request for a declaration of revocation.

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra

The Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra will become effective on January 1, 2026.

Notice concerning the provisional application of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation

The Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation will be provisionally applied from January 1, 2026.

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco

The Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco will enter into force on 1 January 2026.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1774 of 28 August 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1078 as regards strategic investments in the field of defence set out in the investment guidelines for the InvestEU Fund

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1774 amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1078, focusing on strategic investments in the defence sector under the InvestEU Fund. The amendment aims to refine the investment guidelines to better support the EU’s defence industry, particularly by addressing limitations that may hinder the deployment of the InvestEU fund. It seeks to simplify the criteria for strategic investments in defence, clarify eligibility requirements for entities controlled by third countries, and adjust the scope of limitations concerning suppliers and subcontractors.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1078 is amended in accordance with the annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation. The annex replaces point 2.10 of the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1078, which concerns strategic investments. The new point 2.10 outlines the criteria for strategic investments, particularly in defence, space, and cybersecurity, and sets limitations to ensure the security and public order of the Union. It details conditions under which entities controlled by non-associated third countries can be eligible for funding, including the need for guarantees approved by Member States.

The most important provisions for practical use include the revised criteria for strategic investments in defence technologies and products primarily developed for military applications. The regulation clarifies the conditions under which entities controlled by non-associated third countries can be eligible for funding, requiring guarantees approved by Member States or associated countries. It also modifies the rules regarding the transfer of intellectual property rights to non-associated third countries, aligning them with existing national procedures. These changes aim to streamline the investment process while maintaining safeguards for the Union’s security interests.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2553 of 17 December 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1147 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ClearKlens product based on IPA

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2553, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1147. The amendment concerns the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘ClearKlens product based on IPA’.

The regulation updates the list of manufacturers of both the biocidal product and its active substance, Propan-2-ol, adding new manufacturers and manufacturing sites. It also replaces the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1147 in its entirety to enhance clarity and user access to the consolidated summary of biocidal product characteristics. The updated annex includes minor editorial and layout changes due to a change in the format used for generating the summary of biocidal product characteristics.

The most important provisions for users of ‘ClearKlens product based on IPA’ are the updated lists of manufacturers and manufacturing sites, as this ensures transparency and traceability of the product’s origin. Additionally, the consolidated summary of biocidal product characteristics in the new Annex provides comprehensive information on the product’s authorised uses, application methods, risk mitigation measures, and safety instructions, which are crucial for its safe and effective use.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2556 of 17 December 2025 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Komagataella phaffii DSM 25376 and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Komagataella phaffii DSM 26469 as a feed additive for chickens for laying or breeding, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening and minor poultry species for laying or breeding (holder of authorisation: Kaesler Nutrition GmbH) and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1090 as regards the terms of the authorisation of the preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced with Komagataella phaffii DSM 25376 and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced with Komagataella phaffii DSM 26469 as a feed additive for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2556 concerns the authorisation of a specific preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase as a feed additive for certain poultry categories. It specifically targets chickens for laying or breeding, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for fattening, and minor poultry species for laying or breeding. Additionally, it amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1090 to modify the terms of authorisation for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying.

The regulation consists of four articles and two annexes. Article 1 authorises the feed additive under the category of ‘zootechnical additives’ and the functional group of ‘digestibility enhancers,’ subject to the conditions in Annex I. Article 2 replaces the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1090 with Annex II of this regulation, modifying the conditions for using the additive for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. Article 3 provides transitional measures, allowing the continued use and marketing of products produced and labelled before specific dates, in accordance with previous regulations. Article 4 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provisions for practical use are found in Annex I and Annex II, which specify the composition of the additive, the target animal species, the minimum content of the active substances (1 400 LXU and 120 LGU per kg of complete feed), and other conditions of use, including requirements for storage, heat treatment, and user safety. The reduction of the minimum use level for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying, as detailed in Annex II, is also a key change for feed producers.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2592 of 17 December 2025 for the application of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fair use, based on typical usage patterns, and anti-fraud measures for intra-EU communications

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2592 sets out the rules for applying fair use policies and anti-fraud measures by providers of electronic communications regarding intra-EU communications, based on Regulation (EU) 2015/2120. It aims to protect consumers from excessive charges while allowing providers to manage usage and prevent fraud. The regulation ensures that consumers are informed about the conditions of fair use policies and their rights to appeal decisions made by providers.

The Regulation consists of 5 articles. Article 1 defines the fair use policy, stating that providers can apply safeguards when a consumer’s intra-EU communications exceed typical usage. It requires providers to set conditions defining typical usage for at least one billing period across all tariff plans in a Member State, based on volumes significantly higher than average consumption. Article 2 allows providers to implement anti-fraud measures to detect fraudulent usage related to equal pricing for domestic and intra-EU communications, requiring them to inform national authorities of detected fraud. Article 3 focuses on consumer protection, mandating that contracts include terms and conditions of the fair use policy, including potential surcharges, and requires providers to alert consumers when they reach 80% of their typical usage limit. It also grants consumers the right to appeal provider decisions. Article 4 provides a transitional period for BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) to update the benchmark for intra-EU communications and allows providers to use the latest available benchmark report until January 1, 2027. Article 5 specifies the entry into force and the period of validity of the regulation.

The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the conditions for applying a fair use policy (Article 1), the anti-fraud measures (Article 2), and the consumer protection requirements (Article 3). Providers need to carefully define “typical usage” based on BEREC benchmarks and inform consumers transparently about the terms of the fair use policy. Consumers, on the other hand, should be aware of their usage limits and their right to appeal if they believe the fair use policy is being unfairly applied.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2530 of 16 December 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards requirements for qualified trust service providers providing qualified trust services

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2530 establishes specific rules for qualified trust service providers (QTSPs) to comply with Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS Regulation). It details requirements for notifications to supervisory bodies, risk management frameworks, and termination plans for qualified trust services. The regulation aims to ensure the security, reliability, and continuity of qualified trust services within the EU’s digital landscape.

The structure of the act includes:

* **Article 1:** Specifies the elements that QTSPs must notify to supervisory bodies regarding significant changes to their services.
* **Article 2:** Applies the risk management framework requirements from Commission Implementing Regulation 2025/2160 to QTSPs.
* **Article 3:** Sets out detailed requirements for establishing and maintaining termination plans for each qualified trust service.
* **Article 4:** References specific standards and specifications in the Annex that QTSPs must adhere to.
* **Article 5:** States the entry into force date of the regulation.

Compared to previous versions or the base eIDAS Regulation, this act provides more granular detail on how QTSPs should manage their services, particularly in terms of risk management, service changes, and termination planning. It builds upon the general requirements of eIDAS by specifying concrete actions and standards.

The most important provisions for practical use are:

* **Article 1:** The list of changes that QTSPs must notify to supervisory bodies is crucial for ensuring transparency and oversight.
* **Article 3:** The detailed requirements for termination plans are vital for maintaining trust in qualified trust services, as they ensure that services can be terminated without negatively impacting the validity of previously generated outputs.
* **Article 4 and the Annex:** These sections provide a clear list of reference standards and specifications that QTSPs must follow to be presumed compliant with eIDAS.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2536 of 16 December 2025 cancelling the registration of the protected geographical indication Coteaux de Narbonne (PGI)

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2536 cancels the registration of the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) ‘Coteaux de Narbonne’. The cancellation was requested by France, and no opposition was received within the allowed timeframe. As a result, the name ‘Coteaux de Narbonne’ will be removed from the Union register of geographical indications.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 stipulates the cancellation of the registration of the name ‘Coteaux de Narbonne’ (PGI). Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs geographical indications for various products.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly cancels the registration of the ‘Coteaux de Narbonne’ PGI. This means that the name can no longer be used under the protection afforded by the EU’s geographical indication scheme.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2537 of 16 December 2025 designating a European Union reference laboratory for public health on respiratory viruses

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2537 designates a consortium of laboratories as the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for public health on respiratory viruses. The regulation outlines the responsibilities and tasks of the EURL, which include supporting national reference laboratories, promoting good practices in diagnostics and testing, and providing reference services for specific respiratory viruses. The EURL will also coordinate with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and other relevant organizations to enhance preparedness and response to cross-border health threats.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 designates the consortium led by Erasmus Medical Center as the EURL until December 18, 2032, and specifies that its responsibilities and tasks are detailed in the annex. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides detailed information about the composition of the EURL consortium, listing the participating institutions, and specifies the responsibilities and tasks of the EURL, including providing reference services, developing laboratory tests, performing virus characterization, conducting genomic data analysis, providing reference materials, organizing quality assessments, offering scientific advice, optimizing surveillance data collection, performing research, assessing laboratory preparedness, and organizing training.

The main provisions of this act that may be the most important for its use are those that define the specific responsibilities and tasks of the EURL, as outlined in the Annex. These provisions clarify the scope of the EURL’s activities and its role in supporting national reference laboratories and coordinating with European and international organizations to address public health threats related to respiratory viruses.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2538 of 16 December 2025 cancelling the registration of the protected geographical indication Cité de Carcassonne (PGI)

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2538 cancels the registration of the protected geographical indication (PGI) ‘Cité de Carcassonne’. The cancellation was requested by France, and the application was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Since no opposition was received, the Commission has adopted this regulation to remove the name ‘Cité de Carcassonne’ from the Union register of geographical indications.

The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 stipulates the cancellation of the registration of the name ‘Cité de Carcassonne’ (PGI). Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation does not introduce new provisions but implements the cancellation of an existing PGI.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly cancels the protected geographical indication ‘Cité de Carcassonne’. This means that the name ‘Cité de Carcassonne’ will no longer be protected under the EU’s geographical indication scheme.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2599 of 11 December 2025 opening a tariff quota for the year 2026 for the import into the Union of certain goods originating in Norway resulting from the processing of agricultural products covered by Regulation (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2599 opens a duty-free tariff quota for certain goods originating in Norway for the year 2026. These goods are the result of processing agricultural products and are covered by Regulation (EU) No 510/2014. The regulation aims to allow a specific volume of these goods to be imported into the Union from Norway without customs duties, while applying a preferential duty for quantities exceeding the quota.

The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 establishes the duty-free tariff quota for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2026, for specific goods originating in Norway, as detailed in the annex. It also specifies that the rules of origin defined in Protocol 3 to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway apply. For import quantities exceeding the quota, a duty of 0.047 EUR/litre is set. Article 2 stipulates that the Commission will manage the duty-free tariff quota according to Articles 49 to 54 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447. Article 3 indicates the regulation’s entry into force and date of application. The annex lists the specific goods, their CN and TARIC codes, descriptions, and the quota volume.

The most important provision is Article 1, which defines the scope and conditions of the tariff quota. It specifies which goods are eligible for duty-free import, the applicable rules of origin, and the duty rate for quantities exceeding the quota. The Annex provides essential details on the specific products and their corresponding quota volumes, which is crucial for importers and customs authorities.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2531 of 16 December 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic ledgers

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2531.

**Essence of the Act:**

The regulation establishes reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic ledgers, as defined under Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS Regulation). It aims to ensure the integrity, chronological ordering, consistency, and reliability of data recorded in these ledgers. The regulation provides a common set of specifications for recording electronic data in a qualified electronic ledger, promoting trust and security in electronic transactions within the EU. It also addresses the presumption of compliance for qualified trust services that adhere to these standards.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.

* **Article 1** states that the reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic ledgers are those detailed in the Annex.
* **Article 2** specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation.
* **The Annex** provides detailed technical specifications and reference standards for qualified electronic ledgers, including definitions of key terms like “finality,” “distributed electronic ledger,” “consensus mechanism,” and “transaction.” It references standards such as ETSI EN 319 401 v3.1.1 with specific adaptations, ISO 23257:2022, and ISO/TS 23635:2022. The Annex outlines requirements for data origin authentication, chronological ordering, data integrity, cryptographic controls, network security, and monitoring and logging. It also includes specific requirements for providers of qualified electronic ledgers using distributed electronic ledger technologies.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Standardized Practices:** The regulation sets concrete standards for qualified electronic ledgers, making it easier for businesses and organizations to implement and use these technologies in compliance with EU law.
* **Technical Specifications:** The detailed technical specifications in the Annex offer clear guidance for providers of qualified electronic ledgers, ensuring that their services meet the required security and reliability standards.
* **Compliance and Presumption of Conformity:** By adhering to the standards outlined in the regulation, trust service providers can benefit from a presumption of compliance with the eIDAS Regulation, simplifying the process of obtaining or confirming qualified status for their services.
* **Data Protection:** The regulation emphasizes the importance of compliance with GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and Directive 2002/58/EC regarding personal data processing in electronic ledgers.
* **Cryptographic Requirements:** The regulation specifies the cryptographic mechanisms and standards that must be used to ensure data integrity, authenticity, and traceability within qualified electronic ledgers.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2532 of 16 December 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic archiving services

Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2532:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation sets out the rules for applying Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (eIDAS Regulation) concerning reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic archiving services. It aims to ensure that electronic data and documents are stored in a way that preserves their integrity, confidentiality, and proof of origin over time. The regulation focuses on maintaining the trustworthiness of electronic signatures and seals, even beyond their original validity period, by using qualified trust services and adhering to specific security standards.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Article 1:** Focuses on the archiving of electronic documents and data that contain qualified electronic signatures or seals. It mandates that providers of qualified electronic archiving services must ensure the continued trustworthiness, integrity, and accuracy of the origin of these signatures and seals throughout the preservation period. It allows these providers to use qualified preservation services for electronic signatures or seals to meet this requirement.
* **Article 2:** Specifies that the reference standards and specifications for providing qualified electronic archiving services are detailed in the Annex to the Regulation.
* **Article 3:** States the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
* **Annex:** This is the most detailed part, specifying the reference standards and specifications for qualified electronic archiving services. It adapts the standard CEN/TS 18170:2025, and includes requirements related to:
* **Normative references:** Lists standards like ETSI EN 319 401, ETSI EN 319 421, ISO 14721, and others that must be followed.
* **Policy and practice statement:** Requires the establishment of procedures to notify supervisory bodies of changes or cessation of the electronic archiving trust service.
* **Terms and Conditions:** Mandates clear and accessible terms and conditions for subscribers and relying parties.
* **Human resources:** Sets requirements for the expertise and training of personnel in trusted roles.
* **Cryptographic controls and monitoring:** Details how data confidentiality must be guaranteed, how the origin of archived data should be established, and how cryptographic keys should be managed and secured. It also requires monitoring the strength of cryptographic algorithms and updating archiving policies as needed.
* **Network:** Specifies network security requirements, including vulnerability scanning and penetration testing.
* **Collection of evidence:** Requires the collection of evidence for both critical and non-critical events.
* **EATSP termination and termination plan:** Sets requirements for the termination plan of the Electronic Archiving Trust Service Provider (EATSP).
* **Reliable time of events:** Requires the use of qualified timestamps.

**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Maintaining Trustworthiness of Signatures/Seals (Article 1):** This is a core requirement. Providers must actively ensure that electronic signatures and seals remain valid and trustworthy, even beyond their original technological validity.
* **Adherence to Standards in the Annex (Article 2 and Annex):** The detailed specifications in the Annex are crucial. Providers must carefully follow these standards, particularly those related to cryptographic controls, security, and monitoring.
* **Cryptographic Algorithm Monitoring (Annex, section e):** The requirement to monitor the strength of cryptographic algorithms and update policies accordingly is vital for long-term security.
* **Security Certifications (Annex, section e):** The specifications for secure cryptographic devices and the need for certifications like Common Criteria or EUCC are important for ensuring the security of the archiving process.
* **Notification Requirements (Annex, section b):** The obligation to notify the supervisory body of changes or cessation of services is crucial for regulatory compliance.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2527 of 16 December 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards reference standards for qualified certificates for website authentication

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2527 establishes the reference standards for qualified certificates for website authentication, which are crucial for building trust and transparency in online interactions by verifying websites and linking them to their owners. The Regulation aims to provide a framework that supports various types of qualified certificates for different use cases, while also allowing for flexibility in how these certificates are issued to accommodate diverse technical and operational needs. It ensures that these certificates can adapt to a wide range of applications, maintaining trust and interoperability across EU Member States.

The Regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 specifies that the reference standards for qualified certificates for website authentication, as per Article 45(2) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, are detailed in the Annex. Article 2 states the regulation’s entry into force and application dates. The Annex lists the specific ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) standards that qualified certificates for website authentication must adhere to. It distinguishes between certificates used for transport layer security authentication outside web browsers and other types of qualified certificates, each with specific ETSI standards (ETSI EN 319 411-2 V2.6.1 (2025-06) or ETSI TS 119 495 V1.7.1 (2024-07) and ETSI TS 119 411-5 V2.1.1 (2025-02), respectively). There are no direct previous versions, but it builds upon the foundation laid by Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and incorporates amendments from Regulation (EU) 2024/1183.

The most important provision is the Annex, which specifies the ETSI standards that qualified certificates for website authentication must follow. These standards are crucial because they ensure that the certificates meet the necessary requirements for security, reliability, and interoperability across the EU. Compliance with these standards is essential for qualified trust service providers issuing these certificates, as it directly impacts the validity and recognition of the certificates in electronic transactions.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2526 of 16 December 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2713 to correct the designation of an EU reference laboratory and to designate European Union reference laboratories for in vitro diagnostic medical devices intended for detection or quantification of markers of parasite infection and detection of blood grouping markers

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2526 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2713. The main goals are to correct the designation of an existing EU reference laboratory and to designate new EU reference laboratories for specific types of in vitro diagnostic medical devices. These devices are those intended for the detection or quantification of markers of parasite infection and the detection of blood grouping markers.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2713 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this new regulation. Article 2 defines the entry into force and application dates of the regulation. The Annex modifies the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2713 by:

* Correcting the designation of the consortium managed by Servicio Madrileño de Salud (SERMAS) to include associated foundations.
* Adding points 5 and 6 to designate EU reference laboratories for devices intended for detection or quantification of markers of parasite infection and for devices intended for detection of blood grouping markers, respectively.

The most important provisions for practical use are:

* The correction of the designation for the SERMAS consortium, ensuring proper administration of Union contributions.
* The designation of new EU reference laboratories for parasite infection markers and blood grouping markers, which will impact manufacturers of these devices regarding conformity assessment.
* The application date of 1 May 2026 for the newly designated EU reference laboratories to perform tasks under Article 100(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/746, allowing time for these laboratories to coordinate and for manufacturers and notified bodies to adapt their processes.
* The EU reference laboratories designated in point 3 of the Annex to this Regulation shall carry out the task referred to in Article 100(2), point (a), of Regulation (EU) 2017/746, only for devices for which manufacturers or authorised representatives lodge formal applications for conformity assessment with a notified body in accordance with Section 4.3, first subparagraph, of Annex VII to Regulation (EU) 2017/746 from 1 May 2026.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2025.Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal, Lda v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark iTEC SKYNEX – Earlier EU word mark SKYNET – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-58/25.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Indra Sistemas, SA, to register the word mark “iTEC SKYNEX” for services in Class 39, which includes navigation, air traffic control, and transport-related services. Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal Lda. opposed this registration based on its earlier Portuguese word mark “SKYNET,” arguing that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

The core of the judgment focuses on whether the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal correctly assessed the likelihood of confusion between the two trade marks. The General Court annuls the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons regarding its assessment of the relevant public’s understanding of the term “sky.”

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trade mark applications and the opposition proceedings. It then details the forms of order sought by the parties involved. The court then addresses the admissibility of the action before moving on to the substance of the case, which is divided into sections addressing the relevant public, the comparison of services, the similarity of the signs, and the obligation to state reasons. The court ultimately annuls the EUIPO’s decision due to a lack of clarity and consistency in the Board of Appeal’s reasoning, specifically regarding the relevant public’s understanding of the word “sky.” The court does not alter the decision, as it cannot substitute its own assessment for the Board of Appeal’s ambiguous one. Finally, the judgment addresses the allocation of costs.

The most important provision of the act is the finding that the Board of Appeal failed to adequately explain its reasoning regarding the relevant public’s understanding of the word “sky.” This failure to provide a clear and consistent statement of reasons is a violation of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 296 TFEU, and it forms the basis for the annulment of the contested decision.

Arrêt du Tribunal (quatrième chambre) du 17 décembre 2025.#GY contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Rémunération – Allocations familiales – Allocation pour enfant à charge – Enfant atteint d’une maladie de longue durée – Refus d’octroi de la double allocation – Article 67, paragraphe 3, du statut – Obligation de motivation – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation – Responsabilité.#Affaire T-671/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on December 17, 2025, in Case T-671/24, between GY (the applicant) and the European Commission (the defendant). The case concerns a dispute over the refusal to grant the applicant a double allowance for a dependent child with a long-term illness. The applicant sought the annulment of the Commission’s decision denying the double allowance and compensation for damages allegedly suffered due to the administration’s handling of the claim.

The structure of the judgment involves an examination of the applicant’s claims for annulment of the decision denying the double child allowance and for damages. The Court dismisses both claims. The applicant raised two pleas in law in support of the application for annulment: first, a manifest error of assessment and the existence of contradictions in the decisions successively adopted and, second, infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The Court rejected both pleas.

The most important provision of the act is that the court upheld the decision of the Commission, stating that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that his son’s illness imposed heavy burdens that would justify the double allowance. The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a double child allowance can be granted, particularly concerning children with long-term illnesses, and emphasizes the need for providing sufficient evidence of the burdens imposed by the illness.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 December 2025.Enrique Barón Crespo and ZZ v European Parliament.Law governing the institutions – Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament – Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament – Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme – Notice fixing additional voluntary pension rights – Plea of illegality – Acquired rights – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Right to property – Proportionality – Parliamentary independence – Equal treatment – Request that documents be removed from the case file.Joined Cases T-620/23 to T-1023/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by former Members of the European Parliament against the Parliament itself. The core issue revolves around the legality of the Parliament’s decision to amend the rules governing the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme (AVPS) for its members, specifically concerning a reduction in pension amounts and the abolishment of their updating. The applicants argue that this decision infringes upon their acquired rights, legitimate expectations, and the principle of legal certainty, among other things.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** It outlines the context of the dispute, including the applicants’ status as former MEPs who contributed to the AVPS and began receiving pensions before the contested decision. It details the specific amendment introduced by the 2023 decision, which reduced pension amounts by 50% and froze the basis for their calculation.
2. **Forms of order sought:** It summarizes the applicants’ request to annul the payment notices based on the amended rules and the Parliament’s counter-argument for dismissal.
3. **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and analysis.
* It begins with preliminary considerations about the AVPS, its history, and its integration with the Statute for Members of the European Parliament.
* It addresses the Parliament’s request to withdraw two legal opinions from the case file, ultimately granting the request based on the need to protect the institution’s internal legal advice.
* It considers the applicants’ request for measures of organisation of procedure, ultimately deciding that the Court has sufficient information.
* It then delves into the substance of the case, structured around the applicants’ five-part plea of illegality:
* Infringement of Article 27(2) of the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament: The Court finds that the Statute does not preclude the reduction of pension amounts.
* Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, protection of acquired rights, and the protection of legitimate expectations: The Court rejects the claim that the decision violates acquired rights or legitimate expectations.
* Unlawfulness of the 2023 decision due to infringement of the right to property: The Court finds that the reduction in pension amounts does not negate the essence of the pension right and is not a disproportionate interference with the right to property.
* Unlawfulness of the 2023 decision due to infringement of the principles of safeguarding Parliamentary independence and equal treatment: The Court rejects the claims that the decision infringes upon these principles.
4. **Costs:** The Court orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions for its use are:

* The interpretation of Article 27(2) of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, clarifying that it does not guarantee an immutable pension amount.
* The analysis of the principles of legal certainty, acquired rights, and legitimate expectations in the context of pension schemes.
* The assessment of the proportionality of the measures taken by the Parliament, balancing the interests of the AVPS beneficiaries with the financial stability of the scheme and the interests of European taxpayers.
* The ruling on the confidentiality of internal legal opinions and the conditions under which they can be admitted as evidence in court proceedings.

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre élargie) du 17 décembre 2025.#FE contre Parlement européen.#Droit institutionnel – Mesures d’application du statut des députés au Parlement – Réglementation concernant les frais et indemnités des députés au Parlement – Modification du régime de pension complémentaire volontaire – Avis de fixation des droits à pension complémentaire volontaire – Exception d’illégalité – Droits acquis – Sécurité juridique – Confiance légitime – Droit de propriété – Proportionnalité – Indépendance parlementaire – Égalité de traitement – Demande de retrait de documents du dossier.#Affaire T-483/24.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the General Court of the European Union (Extended Second Chamber) from December 17, 2025, in Case T-483/24, FE v. European Parliament. The case concerns the application of measures related to the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, specifically regarding the voluntary supplementary pension scheme (VSPS). The judgment addresses the legality of changes made to this pension scheme and their impact on the rights of former members of the Parliament.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** Describes the context of the dispute, including the applicant’s status as a former MEP, their participation in the VSPS, and the decision by the Parliament’s Bureau in 2023 that modified the application of the Statute for MEPs.
2. **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by the applicant (FE) and the European Parliament. FE seeks the annulment of decisions applying the modified pension scheme, while the Parliament requests the rejection of the action.
3. **Legal Analysis:**
* **Preliminary Considerations:** Provides an overview of the VSPS, its establishment, funding, and integration with the Statute for MEPs.
* **Request to Remove Documents:** Addresses the Parliament’s request to remove certain legal opinions from the case file, ultimately granting this request based on the confidentiality of internal legal advice.
* **Request for Procedural Measures:** Discusses the applicant’s request for the disclosure of additional documents related to the decision-making process, partially granting it by requesting specific documents from the Parliament.
* **Merits:** Examines the substance of the case, focusing on the applicant’s claim that the decisions affecting their pension are illegal due to the illegality of the 2023 decision. This section is divided into five parts, addressing the violation of acquired rights, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, property rights, proportionality, parliamentary independence, and equal treatment.
4. **Costs:** Determines that the applicant, having lost the case, must bear the costs.

The most important provisions of the judgment are:

* **Rejection of Illegality Claims:** The Court rejects the applicant’s arguments that the 2023 decision illegally affects acquired pension rights, violates legal certainty and legitimate expectations, infringes on property rights, breaches the principle of proportionality, or undermines parliamentary independence and equal treatment.
* **Interpretation of Article 27 of the Statute:** The Court interprets Article 27(2) of the Statute for MEPs as not precluding modifications to the material conditions of the VSPS, including adjustments to pension amounts.
* **Legitimate Expectations:** The Court finds that the Parliament did not create legitimate expectations that pension amounts would remain unchanged, despite previous assurances regarding the VSPS.
* **Proportionality:** The Court concludes that the measures taken by the Parliament were proportionate to the legitimate aims of safeguarding the VSPS and limiting the financial burden on the European taxpayer.
* **Right to Property:** The Court acknowledges that the reduction in pension amounts restricts the applicant’s right to property but finds that this restriction is justified and does not violate the essential content of that right.
* **Parliamentary Independence and Equal Treatment:** The Court dismisses the claims that the changes to the VSPS undermine parliamentary independence or violate the principle of equal treatment.
* **Confidentiality of Legal Advice:** The Court upholds the confidentiality of the Parliament’s internal legal advice, preventing its use in the proceedings.

Arrêt du Tribunal (septième chambre) du 17 décembre 2025.#Freixenet, SA contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative CB – Marque nationale verbale antérieure C.B. – Motif relatif de refus – Risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Usage sérieux de la marque antérieure – Article 47, paragraphe 2, du règlement 2017/1001.#Affaire T-222/25.

This document is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a trademark dispute between Freixenet, SA and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Alvear, SA as the intervening party. The court addresses Freixenet’s appeal against the EUIPO’s decision, which had found a likelihood of confusion between Freixenet’s figurative trademark “CB” and Alvear’s earlier Spanish word mark “C.B.” for similar goods (wines). The court ultimately dismisses Freixenet’s appeal, upholding the EUIPO’s decision that there is a risk of confusion between the trademarks.

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the purpose of the action, which is to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
* **Background to the Dispute:** Details the timeline of events, including the application for the EU trademark by Freixenet, the opposition filed by Alvear based on its earlier Spanish trademark, and the reasons for the opposition.
* **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Freixenet (the applicant) and the EUIPO (the defendant).
* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment and is divided into two main pleas:

* **First Plea: Violation of Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This concerns the proof of genuine use of the earlier trademark. The court examines whether Alvear provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate genuine use of its “C.B.” mark for wines in Spain during the relevant period. The court concludes that the evidence presented by Alvear demonstrates genuine use of the earlier mark for wines, dismissing Freixenet’s arguments.
* **Second Plea: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This addresses the likelihood of confusion between the trademarks. The court assesses the relevant public, the similarity of the goods, the similarity of the signs (visually, phonetically, and conceptually), and the distinctiveness of the earlier mark. The court concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks, considering the identity of the goods, the high degree of visual similarity, the phonetic identity, and the normal distinctiveness of the earlier mark.
* **Costs:** Determines that each party will bear its own costs.

The most important provisions for its use are:

* **Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This article is crucial because it sets out the requirements for proving genuine use of an earlier trademark in opposition proceedings. The court’s interpretation of this article clarifies what constitutes sufficient evidence of use, including the nature, location, duration, and extent of the use.
* **Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This article defines the likelihood of confusion as a ground for refusing trademark registration. The court’s analysis of this article provides guidance on how to assess the likelihood of confusion, considering factors such as the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods, and the perception of the relevant public.

Urteil des Gerichts (Zweite erweiterte Kammer) vom 17. Dezember 2025.#Neoperl AG gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung einer Unionsmarke, die ein zylindrisches sanitäres Einsetzteil darstellt – Positions-Tastmarke – Absolutes Eintragungshindernis – Fehlende Unterscheidungskraft – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 207/2009 – Begründungspflicht – Art. 94 Abs. 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Ermittlung des Sachverhalts von Amts wegen – Art. 95 der Verordnung 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-487/21 RENV.

This document is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for a European Union trademark. The case concerns Neoperl AG’s application to register a tactile position mark representing a cylindrical sanitary insert. The EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) rejected the application based on a lack of distinctive character. The court ultimately upholds the EUIPO’s decision, finding that the mark lacks distinctive character and does not meet the requirements for registration.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:

* **Background:** Describes the initial trademark application, the EUIPO’s initial objections, and the subsequent appeal process.
* **Procedure before the Court and the Court of Justice:** Outlines the legal proceedings, including the initial judgment by the General Court, the appeal to the Court of Justice, and the referral of the case back to the General Court.
* **Claims of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by Neoperl AG (the applicant) and the EUIPO.
* **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning and analysis. It is divided into several parts:
* **Preliminary Observations:** Clarifies the applicable law and the scope of the dispute.
* **Third Plea:** Addresses the claim that the EUIPO failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision.
* **First Plea:** Examines the claim that the EUIPO incorrectly applied Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (lack of distinctive character). This section is further divided into sub-arguments regarding the relevant public, the habits of the sanitary insert sector, and the functional character of the tactile sensation.
* **Second Plea:** Addresses the claim that the EUIPO violated Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 by failing to adequately investigate the facts.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.

The main provisions of the act are:

* **Distinctive Character (Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009):** The court confirms that the trademark must allow consumers to identify the product as originating from a specific company and distinguish it from other companies’ products. The court found that the tactile mark in question would not allow consumers to distinguish the products of Neoperl from those of other companies.
* **Obligation to State Reasons (Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001):** The court found that the EUIPO had provided sufficient reasons for its decision to reject the trademark application.
* **Ex Officio Examination of Facts (Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001):** The court found that the EUIPO had not failed to examine the facts of its own motion.

The most important provisions for its use are:

* The criteria for assessing the distinctive character of a trademark, particularly for marks that relate to the appearance of the product itself.
* The importance of providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a mark has distinctive character, either intrinsically or through acquired use.
* The EUIPO’s obligation to examine the facts of a case thoroughly when assessing absolute grounds for refusal of registration.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2025.Igor Rotenberg v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Concept of ‘benefitting from Russian decision-makers or from the Government of the Russian Federation’ – Article 2(1)(d) and (f) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Concept of ‘association’ – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Right to property – Freedom to conduct a business.Case T-268/24.

Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-268/24, *Igor Rotenberg v. Council*:

1. **Essence of the Act:** This judgment concerns Igor Rotenberg’s challenge to the EU Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freezes) due to his alleged association with actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Rotenberg argues that the Council’s decisions are unlawful, lack sufficient reasoning, and violate his fundamental rights. The General Court ultimately dismisses Rotenberg’s action, upholding the Council’s decision to keep him sanctioned.

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of EU restrictive measures against individuals and entities linked to actions undermining Ukraine, starting with Decision 2014/145/CFSP. It details the amendments made to the criteria for imposing sanctions and the specific decisions and regulations that led to Rotenberg’s inclusion on the list.
* **Applicant’s Claims:** Rotenberg’s legal challenge is based on four main pleas:
* Illegality of specific articles in Decision 2014/145/CFSP.
* Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and breach of the right to effective judicial protection.
* Manifest error of assessment by the Council.
* Breach of fundamental rights (freedom to conduct business, right to property) and the principle of proportionality.
* **Court’s Analysis:** The Court systematically addresses each of Rotenberg’s pleas:
* **Illegality Plea:** The Court rejects Rotenberg’s argument that the concept of “benefit” in the sanctions criteria is too broad.
* **Statement of Reasons:** The Court finds that the Council provided sufficient reasoning for maintaining Rotenberg’s name on the list, enabling him to understand the basis for the measures and to challenge them effectively.
* **Error of Assessment:** The Court examines the evidence presented by the Council to justify Rotenberg’s continued listing. It focuses on his past and present connections to leading Russian enterprises, his relationship with Vladimir Putin, and his alleged benefit from Russian decision-makers.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The Court acknowledges that the sanctions limit Rotenberg’s fundamental rights but concludes that these limitations are justified by the EU’s legitimate objective of exerting pressure on Russia to end its destabilizing actions in Ukraine. The Court finds the measures proportionate.
* **Decision:** The General Court dismisses Rotenberg’s action and orders him to pay the costs.

3. **Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Interpretation of “Benefitting”:** The Court clarifies that “benefitting” from Russian decision-makers or the Russian government doesn’t require a direct link to the annexation of Crimea or the destabilization of Ukraine. It’s sufficient to benefit from individuals responsible for those actions.
* **Evidentiary Standards:** The Court acknowledges the difficulties in gathering evidence in the context of the conflict in Ukraine and accepts the use of publicly available sources, such as press articles and reports, as a basis for the Council’s assessment.
* **Temporal Scope:** The Court confirms that the Council can consider past conduct and circumstances when assessing whether an individual continues to meet the listing criteria, emphasizing the importance of establishing “continuity” between past and present situations.
* **Proportionality Analysis:** The Court reaffirms that restrictions on fundamental rights are permissible if they are prescribed by law, respect the essence of those rights, pursue a legitimate objective of general interest, and are proportionate to the aim pursued.

: This judgment is directly related to the EU’s response to the situation in Ukraine and has implications for individuals and entities targeted by EU sanctions. It clarifies the legal standards and evidentiary requirements for imposing and maintaining restrictive measures in this context.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2025.Andrey Melnichenko v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Right to effective judicial protection – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Plea of illegality – Error of assessment – Fundamental rights – Proportionality.Case T-1114/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding the restrictive measures imposed on Andrey Melnichenko by the Council of the European Union following Russia’s actions against Ukraine. Melnichenko is challenging the decisions to maintain his name on the EU’s sanctions list, which includes a freezing of funds and travel restrictions. The court ruling addresses the legality and justification of these measures.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses an action brought by Andrey Melnichenko against several Council Decisions and Implementing Regulations from 2023 to 2025 that maintained his inclusion on the EU’s sanctions list related to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:

* **Background:** It outlines the history of the sanctions regime concerning Ukraine and the specific decisions that led to Melnichenko’s inclusion on the list, starting with the initial acts in March 2022.
* **Grounds for the Dispute:** Details the Council’s reasoning for maintaining Melnichenko on the list, citing his control over major companies like EuroChem and SUEK, his connections to the Russian government, and his participation in meetings with Vladimir Putin.
* **Forms of Order Sought:** Specifies the requests of Melnichenko (supported by SUEK and EuroChem) to annul the contested acts and the Council’s (supported by the Commission) request to dismiss the action.
* **Legal Analysis:** The court examines four pleas raised by Melnichenko:
* **Illegality of the listing criterion:** Melnichenko argues the criteria used to justify his inclusion on the list are unlawful.
* **Error of Assessment:** He claims the Council incorrectly assessed the facts related to his situation.
* **Infringement of Fundamental Rights:** Melnichenko contends the sanctions violate his rights to property, free movement, and conducting business.
* **Infringement of the Right to Be Heard:** He argues the Council failed to properly consider his input and conduct a thorough review.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* The judgment focuses on the application of restrictive measures based on Council Decisions and Implementing Regulations from September 2023 to March 2025.
* It refers to amendments made to Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, particularly concerning the criteria for designating individuals subject to sanctions.
* The key criterion under scrutiny is Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145, which targets “leading businesspersons operating in Russia” and those involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian government.
* The judgment references previous decisions and amendments, such as Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094 and related regulations, which broadened the scope of individuals who could be sanctioned.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

* **Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP:** This article, as amended, defines the criteria for designating individuals subject to restrictive measures, specifically targeting leading businesspersons operating in Russia and those involved in sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government.
* **The Court’s Analysis of the “Leading Businessperson” Criterion:** The court’s interpretation of what constitutes a “leading businessperson” and the level of connection required with the Russian government is crucial. The court clarifies that the Council must demonstrate that the person is a leading businessperson operating in Russia, but does not necessarily need to prove a direct link between the person and the Russian regime.
* **The Court’s Assessment of Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** The judgment provides insight into how the court balances the objectives of the sanctions regime with the fundamental rights of individuals affected, such as the right to property and freedom to conduct a business.
* **The Council’s Obligation for Periodic Reviews:** The judgment emphasizes the Council’s duty to conduct updated assessments of the situation and to appraise the impact of restrictive measures to determine whether they have achieved their objectives.

**** This judgment is highly relevant to individuals and entities subject to EU sanctions related to the situation in Ukraine, particularly those who are considered leading businesspersons operating in Russia. It clarifies the legal standards and evidentiary requirements for maintaining individuals on the sanctions list and provides guidance on the scope and limitations of the EU’s sanctions regime.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2025.Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal, Lda v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark iTEC SkyNex – Earlier EU word mark SKYNET – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-57/25.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court annuls a decision by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case revolves around an opposition filed by Transportes Centrais de Vergadela, Unipessoal Lda. against the registration of the figurative mark iTEC SkyNex by Indra Sistemas, SA, based on the earlier Portuguese word mark SKYNET.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. The court outlines the background of the dispute, including the trade mark application, the opposition, and the contested decision by the Board of Appeal.
2. It addresses the admissibility of the action brought by Transportes Centrais de Vergadela.
3. The court then examines the substance of the case, focusing on the alleged infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. This involves assessing the relevant public, comparing the services at issue, and evaluating the similarity of the signs.
4. Finally, the court rules on the costs of the proceedings.

The key provisions and changes from previous decisions are:
* The court finds that the Board of Appeal made an error in its assessment of the relevant public’s understanding of the English word “sky,” leading to a lack of clarity and consistency in the statement of reasons.
* The court determines that some of the services covered by the mark applied for are identical, similar, and dissimilar to the services covered by the earlier mark, differing from the Board of Appeal’s assessment.
* Despite finding errors in the Board of Appeal’s reasoning, the court rejects the applicant’s request to alter the contested decision, as it cannot substitute its own assessment for the Board of Appeal’s ambiguous assessment.
* Ultimately, the court annuls the Board of Appeal’s decision due to the inadequate statement of reasons regarding the relevant public’s understanding of the term “sky.”

The most important aspect of this judgment is the emphasis on the requirement for EUIPO decisions to provide a clear and consistent statement of reasons. The court found that the Board of Appeal’s reasoning regarding the relevant public’s understanding of the term “sky” was ambiguous and lacked clarity, preventing the court from properly reviewing the merits of the assessments based on that understanding. This highlights the importance of EUIPO decisions being well-reasoned and transparent to allow for effective judicial review.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2025.Aleksandra Melnichenko v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list – Right to effective judicial protection – Concept of ‘benefiting from a leading businessperson operating in Russia’ – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Plea of illegality – Error of assessment – Fundamental rights – Proportionality.Case T-1113/23.

This is the judgment of the General Court regarding the case T-1113/23, involving Aleksandra Melnichenko and the Council of the European Union.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns Ms. Melnichenko’s challenge to the EU Council’s decisions to maintain her on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) due to her connection to her husband, Andrey Melnichenko, a Russian businessman. The General Court dismisses Ms. Melnichenko’s action, upholding the Council’s decisions. The court rejects her claims that the criteria for sanctions are unlawful, that the Council made errors in its assessment, and that her fundamental rights were infringed.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses the following key aspects:

* **Background:** It outlines the history of the restrictive measures imposed by the EU in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including the initial listing of Ms. Melnichenko and subsequent renewals.
* **Grounds for Listing:** The Council’s justification for including Ms. Melnichenko on the list is that she is the wife of Andrey Melnichenko, who transferred ownership of major companies to her, and that she benefits from his wealth, specifically through her position as the beneficial owner of Firstline Trust.
* **Pleas of Illegality:** Ms. Melnichenko raises several pleas, including the illegality of the criteria used to justify the sanctions, errors in the Council’s assessment, and infringement of her fundamental rights.
* **Court’s Analysis:** The General Court systematically addresses each of Ms. Melnichenko’s pleas, ultimately rejecting them. The court finds that the Council had a sufficient factual basis for its decisions and that the restrictive measures are proportionate to the objectives pursued.
* **Interveners:** Siberian Coal Energy Company AO (SUEK) and EuroChem Group AG intervened in support of Ms. Melnichenko, but the court also rejects their arguments.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Criterion for Sanctions:** The judgment clarifies the interpretation and application of the criteria used to impose sanctions, particularly the concept of “benefiting from a leading businessperson operating in Russia.”
* **Burden of Proof:** The court reiterates that the Council bears the burden of proving that the reasons for imposing sanctions are well-founded.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of effective judicial review of EU acts imposing restrictive measures.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The court acknowledges the need to respect fundamental rights but finds that the limitations imposed by the sanctions are justified and proportionate in this case.
* **Periodic Reviews:** The judgment highlights the Council’s obligation to conduct periodic reviews of restrictive measures to ensure that they remain justified.

**** This judgment is related to the restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2025.Evroins inshurans grup AD v European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority.European System of Financial Supervision – Request not to publish a decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities or to treat certain information as confidential – Refusal of the request – Action for annulment – Partial lack of jurisdiction – Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 – Independence – Impartiality.Case T-367/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a case brought by Evroins inshurans grup AD against the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA). The case concerns EIOPA’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request for confidential treatment of a decision made by the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities. Evroins sought to prevent the publication of the Board of Appeal’s decision or, alternatively, to have it redacted.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: It starts with an introduction outlining the purpose of the action, followed by the background to the dispute, including the applicant’s concerns about a potential breach of EU law by the Romanian supervisory authority. It then details the forms of order sought by the applicant and the response from EIOPA. The main body of the judgment addresses the Court’s jurisdiction and the pleas raised by the applicant, including alleged infringements of EU regulations and principles of equal treatment, independence, and impartiality. Finally, it concludes with the Court’s decision to dismiss the action and orders regarding costs.

The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the Court’s jurisdiction and the interpretation of confidentiality requirements. The Court clarifies that it does not have the power to issue directions to EU bodies, such as ordering the Board of Appeal not to publish its decision. It also emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the party requesting confidential treatment to justify such treatment. The judgment reiterates that information is only considered confidential if it is known to a limited number of persons, its disclosure could cause serious harm, and the interests harmed by disclosure are objectively worthy of protection.

Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 17 décembre 2025.#CB contre Commission européenne.#Fonction publique – Fonctionnaires – Recrutement – Concours général EPSO/AST/150/21 – Décision de ne pas inscrire le nom du requérant sur la liste de réserve – Égalité de traitement.#Affaire T-37/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a case brought by CB against the European Commission concerning a general competition EPSO/AST/150/21. The court annuls the decision of the jury not to include CB on the reserve list for the recruitment of technicians AST 3 in the field of “laboratory technicians”. The court found a violation of the principle of equal treatment due to instability of the jury and inadequate coordination measures.

The structure of the judgment includes a summary of the facts, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the court. The applicant, CB, challenged the decision of the jury not to include her on the reserve list after a competition. She claimed several irregularities, including technical issues during the case study, violation of the right to good administration, and violation of the principles of equal treatment and transparency. The Commission defended its decision, arguing that the jury had taken appropriate measures to ensure equal treatment and that the applicant’s performance did not warrant inclusion on the reserve list.

The court’s reasoning focuses on the third plea raised by the applicant, concerning the violation of the principle of equal treatment and the stability of the jury. The court found that the composition of the jury had changed during the competition and that there was no consistent core of examiners. The court acknowledged that some fluctuation in the composition of the jury is acceptable in large competitions, but it emphasized that measures must be taken to ensure equal treatment and objectivity. The court found that the measures taken by the Commission were insufficient to compensate for the instability of the jury, particularly regarding the lack of a detailed grading scale for the interview focused on skills. The court concluded that the Commission had not demonstrated that the selection procedure was based on equal treatment and a consistent evaluation of candidates.

The most important provision of the act is the emphasis on the need for stability in the composition of the jury in competitions for EU civil service positions, or, failing that, the implementation of sufficient compensatory measures to ensure equal treatment and objectivity in the evaluation of candidates. The judgment clarifies the standard of review applied by the General Court in such cases and provides guidance on the measures that must be taken to ensure compliance with the principles of equal treatment and objectivity.

Urteil des Gerichts (Achte Kammer) vom 17. Dezember 2025.#Schöffel Sportbekleidung GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Verfallsverfahren – Internationale Registrierung mit Benennung der Europäischen Union – Bildmarke Schöffel Ich bin raus. – Art. 58 Abs. 1 Buchst. a der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Rechtsmissbrauch.#Rechtssache T-536/24.

This document is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a case (T-536/24) between Schöffel Sportbekleidung GmbH (the applicant) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with BV as the other party in the proceedings. The case concerns the cancellation of the EU trademark “Schöffel Ich bin raus.” due to lack of genuine use, and whether the cancellation request constituted an abuse of law.

The judgment addresses Schöffel’s appeal against the EUIPO’s decision to uphold the cancellation request. Schöffel argued that BV’s request was an abuse of law. The General Court rejected Schöffel’s appeal, finding that the EUIPO was correct in determining that BV’s cancellation request did not constitute an abuse of law. The court examined several arguments raised by Schöffel, including the behavior of the party requesting the cancellation, the number and scope of cancellation requests, and a prior dispute between the parties.

The key provision of the act is that it confirms the EUIPO’s decision that the request for cancellation of the trademark was not an abuse of law. The court emphasized that any natural or legal person may submit a request for a declaration of revocation. The judgment reinforces the principle that EU trademarks must be genuinely used to maintain their protection and clarifies the circumstances under which a cancellation request can be considered an abuse of law.

Information relating to the entry into force of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra on the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance

This notice concerns the entry into force of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra. The protocol aims to enhance international tax compliance through the automatic exchange of financial account information. With the completion of the necessary procedures, the Amending Protocol will become effective on January 1, 2026.

The notice itself is brief and serves primarily to announce the effective date of the Amending Protocol. It references the Official Journal where the full text of the agreement and its amending protocol can be found (OJ L, 2025/2400). The core of the legal content is within the Amending Protocol and the original Agreement, which this notice brings into effect.

The most important provision of this notice is the date of entry into force: January 1, 2026. This date is crucial for financial institutions in both the EU and Andorra, as it marks the point from which the amended rules on automatic exchange of financial account information will apply. Parties involved in financial transactions between the EU and Andorra need to be aware of this date to ensure compliance with the updated regulations.

Information relating to the provisional application of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance

This notice concerns the provisional application of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the automatic exchange of financial account information. This protocol aims to improve international tax compliance. According to Article 2(2) of the Amending Protocol, it will be provisionally applied starting from January 1, 2026.

The notice itself is very brief and serves primarily to announce the date of provisional application of the Amending Protocol. It does not contain a detailed structure or specific provisions but refers to the Amending Protocol signed in Brussels on October 20, 2025, which contains the actual amendments and provisions. The main change is the introduction of the Amending Protocol.

The most important provision mentioned in this notice is the date from which the Amending Protocol will be provisionally applied, which is January 1, 2026. This date is crucial for financial institutions and tax authorities in both the EU and Switzerland, as it marks the beginning of the implementation of the amended rules for the automatic exchange of financial account information.

Information relating to the entry into force of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco on the exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance in accordance with the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

This notice concerns the entry into force of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco regarding the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance. The Protocol aligns the agreement with the OECD’s Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. It specifies that the Amending Protocol will enter into force on 1 January 2026. This follows the completion of the necessary procedures outlined in Article 2 of the Protocol on 27 November 2025.

The notice itself is a short announcement. It refers to the Amending Protocol, signed on 13 October 2025, and indicates that all necessary steps for its entry into force have been completed. The core of the legal content resides within the Amending Protocol itself (OJ L, 2025/2393), which this notice simply announces is now in effect as of 1 January 2026. The notice does not contain any substantial provisions beyond this statement of entry into force.

The most important aspect of this notice is the confirmation that the Amending Protocol will be implemented from 1 January 2026. This means that the EU and Monaco will be obliged to exchange financial account information according to the updated standards set out in the Protocol and aligned with the OECD’s framework. Financial institutions and individuals with financial accounts in both jurisdictions should be aware of these changes, as they will affect reporting and transparency requirements for tax purposes.