Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/166: This regulation adjusts how Member States plan and report outputs under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It streamlines reporting processes, offers more flexibility in calculating partial outputs, and prevents double counting of values related to result indicators. Specifically, it changes calculation methods for output indicators, the reporting of advances and aggregated values, and clarifies rules on additional national financing. It also avoids double counting of outputs.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/180: This regulation updates the names of authorisation holders for several feed additives from DSM Nutritional Products Ltd. to Novozymes A/S. It amends eleven existing Implementing Regulations, replacing the old company name with the new one in both the title and relevant sections of the Annexes. It also allows for a transitional period where products labelled with the old name can still be used until stocks are exhausted.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/130: This regulation mandates the registration of imports of new rubber pneumatic tyres from China, typically used on cars, buses, or lorries, with a load index not exceeding 121. This step allows for the potential retroactive imposition of countervailing duties if an ongoing anti-subsidy investigation determines it necessary to protect Union producers from unfair competition.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/160: This regulation introduces temporary emergency measures for Hungary, allowing a derogation from specific Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provisions due to severe frost events in April and May 2025. It increases the limit of Union financial assistance for operational programs in 2025 from 50% to 70% of actual expenditure for affected producer organizations in Hungary. It also requires Hungary to avoid overcompensation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/165: This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128, focusing on the annual performance clearance, multi-annual performance monitoring, and scrutiny of transactions within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It clarifies deadlines for remedial actions in action plans, mandates the use of specific templates for these plans, and provides greater flexibility in selecting undertakings for scrutiny based on risk analysis.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/148: This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173, simplifying quality assessments of agricultural land monitoring systems and removing the requirement for farmers to report on the use of plant protection products within the geo-spatial application. It merges three quality assessments into one and eliminates a redundant reporting obligation for farmers.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/159: This regulation introduces temporary emergency measures for Hungary, allowing a derogation from certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891, due to severe frost events in April and May 2025. It allows affected producer organizations in Hungary to sell products from non-member producers, regardless of the economic value of that activity compared to the organization’s marketed production.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163: This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289, adjusting the requirements for Member States when designing and presenting their CAP Strategic Plans. It clarifies payments for commitments related to Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards 2 and 9, updates the definition of permanent grassland, includes a new intervention type for crisis payments to farmers, and removes the requirement to describe simplified controls for conditionality for small farmers.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/170: This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130, updating the content and presentation of the annual performance report under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It removes reporting requirements related to derogations from GAEC standards and information previously required for the annual performance clearance procedure. It focuses on achieved values of result indicators, realised outputs, additional national financing, and aggregated values of output indicators.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/144: This regulation approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Mátra/Mátrai’, concerning specific characteristics of the wine produced in the Mátra region.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/119: This regulation denies the authorisation for a preparation of carvacrol as a feed additive for weaned piglets, as the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of its efficacy as a zootechnical additive.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/173: This regulation amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, updating lists of third countries authorized for the entry into the Union of poultry, germinal products, and fresh meat, responding to recent avian influenza outbreaks in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It temporarily suspends imports from specific affected zones while re-authorizing imports from zones where the situation has been resolved.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/145: This regulation establishes a fisheries closure for blue ling in specific areas for vessels flying the flag of Spain, declaring that Spain’s fishing quota for blue ling in area 6 and 7 has been exhausted for 2025. It prohibits fishing for blue ling in these areas by Spanish vessels from a specified date.
General Court Judgment (DEINS trademark): The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO, rejecting the trademark application for the word “DEINS” because it lacks distinctive character and would be perceived as a promotional message rather than an indicator of the commercial origin of the goods.
General Court Judgment (1,4-Benzenediamine): The General Court dismissed the action against Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/197, upholding the classification of 1,4-Benzenediamine, N,N’-mixed Ph and tolyl derivs. as a reproductive toxicant category 1B, emphasizing the criteria for such classifications and the weight of evidence required.
General Court Judgment (Ethanol and Bioethanol Markets): The General Court dismissed Lantmännen’s action against a Commission decision finding them in violation of competition rules, confirming the Commission’s right to use a hybrid procedure (settling with some parties while continuing proceedings against others) and affirming that the Commission respected the presumption of innocence and maintained impartiality.
General Court Judgment (Flight Delay Compensation): The General Court clarified the scope of “extraordinary circumstances” under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, ruling that not every air traffic management decision automatically qualifies as such and that airlines can rely on decisions affecting prior flights if there is a direct causal link to the delay.
General Court Judgment (“PAYKIT” trademark): The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision to refuse the registration of the word mark “PAYKIT”, finding it descriptive and lacking distinctiveness.
General Court Judgment (“Elton” trademark): The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision, finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign “Elton” and an earlier Swedish word mark “ELON”.
General Court Judgment (DT v Eulex Kosovo): The Court asserts its jurisdiction based on the arbitration clause in the employment contract, examining if DT’s right to be heard and obligation to state reasons were respected. It also considers legitimate expectations, the principle of equal treatment, contractual vs. non-contractual liability, and the CFSP limitations.
General Court Judgment (Puma v Ningbo Gongfang): The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The court based its decision on a visual comparison of the signs, determining that the differences in geometric configuration, the presence of a black background in Ningbo Gongfang’s mark, and the orientation of the stripes were significant enough to prevent confusion among consumers.
General Court Judgment (“EF” trademark): The General Court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign applied for registration as an EU trade mark, which features the letters “EF,” and an earlier EU word mark “EF – ERMELINDA FREITAS” .
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/166 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290 as regards planning and reporting of outputs under output indicators and double counting of values under result indicators
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/166 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290, focusing on the planning and reporting of outputs under output indicators and addressing the issue of double counting of values under result indicators within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans. The amendments aim to streamline reporting processes, provide more flexibility in calculating partial outputs, and ensure consistency between planning and reporting of outputs. Additionally, the regulation clarifies the reporting of aggregated values for specific output indicators and introduces rules to prevent double counting of outputs, thereby reducing the administrative burden on Member States.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 details the amendments to the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2290, modifying calculation methods for output indicators, reporting of advances, aggregated values, and rules regarding additional national financing. It also introduces a provision to avoid double counting of outputs and clarifies the calculation and reporting of outputs in result indicators. Article 2 specifies the entry into force of the regulation and the application dates for specific provisions, aligning them with the agricultural financial year 2025 and subsequent years.
The most important provisions of this act are those related to the calculation of partial outputs, the reporting of aggregated values for output indicators, and the prevention of double counting. The new rules allow for more flexible reporting of partial outputs generated over several agricultural financial years, ensuring that the sum of partial outputs for a unit equals 1 at the balance payment. The regulation also clarifies how to report aggregated values for output indicator O.3, especially when categories are indicated in the CAP Strategic Plan. Furthermore, the act introduces a mechanism to prevent outputs measured in hectares or livestock units from being reported if they have not been paid by a specific date, and it clarifies the conditions under which double counting of outputs in result indicators is permissible.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/180 of 19 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2021/1426, (EU) 2024/221, (EU) 2023/1333, (EU) 2024/1058, (EU) 2023/1342, (EU) 2024/778, (EU) 2024/2177, (EU) 2019/805, (EU) 2020/163, (EU) 2021/1431 and (EU) 2025/161 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation for feed additives
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/180 is focused on a purely administrative update, specifically amending the names of the authorisation holders for several feed additives. The regulation addresses the change of name of the company holding the authorisations for these additives, from DSM Nutritional Products Ltd. to Novozymes A/S. This change impacts multiple existing regulations concerning the authorisation of various feed additives used in animal nutrition.
The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It amends eleven existing Implementing Regulations (EU) 2021/1426, (EU) 2024/221, (EU) 2023/1333, (EU) 2024/1058, (EU) 2023/1342, (EU) 2024/778, (EU) 2024/2177, (EU) 2019/805, (EU) 2020/163, (EU) 2021/1431 and (EU) 2025/161. For each of these regulations, the amendment involves replacing the name “DSM Nutritional Products Ltd.” (and its variations including representation details) with “Novozymes A/S” in both the title and the relevant section of the Annex. The regulation also includes a transitional measure allowing for the continued use of products labelled under the previous name until stocks are exhausted.
The most important provision for practical use is Article 12, which provides a transitional period. This allows feed additives produced and labelled with the old company name (DSM Nutritional Products Ltd.) before the entry into force of this regulation to continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are depleted. This ensures that there is no immediate disruption to the supply or use of these feed additives due to the administrative change.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/130 of 21 January 2026 making imports of new pneumatic tyres, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, buses or lorries with a load index not exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/130 mandates the registration of imports of new pneumatic tyres made of rubber, typically used on cars, buses, or lorries with a load index not exceeding 121, originating from the People’s Republic of China. This action is a preliminary step that allows for the potential retroactive imposition of countervailing duties if an ongoing anti-subsidy investigation determines it necessary. The regulation aims to protect Union producers from unfair competition.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the registration and two articles. Article 1 directs customs authorities to register the specified tyre imports from China and sets a nine-month expiration for the registration period. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will take effect the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2016/1037, which concerns protection against subsidized imports from non-EU countries. It does not introduce new policies but implements a procedural step under existing trade regulations.
The most important provision is Article 1, which instructs customs authorities to register specific tyre imports from China. This registration is crucial because it enables the retroactive application of countervailing duties if the EU investigation concludes that these imports are unfairly subsidized and causing injury to EU manufacturers. Businesses importing these tyres should be aware of this registration requirement, as it could lead to additional financial liabilities in the future.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/160 of 21 January 2026 on temporary emergency measures for Hungary derogating from a provision of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council, to resolve specific problems in the fruit and vegetables sector caused by severe adverse meteorological events
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/160 introduces temporary emergency measures for Hungary, allowing a derogation from specific provisions of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 concerning the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The regulation addresses specific problems in the fruit and vegetables sector in Hungary caused by severe frost events in April and May 2025. It aims to provide flexibility in the implementation of operational programs for producer organizations affected by these events, enabling them to redirect funds to necessary interventions.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 introduces a temporary derogation from Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, increasing the limit of Union financial assistance for operational programs in 2025 from 50% to 70% of actual expenditure for affected producer organizations in Hungary. It also mandates Hungary to avoid overcompensation by considering other support received from national, Union, or private schemes. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and application period of the regulation, which is from the date of publication until January 22, 2027.
The most important provision of this act is the increase in the limit of Union financial assistance to 70% of actual expenditure for operational programs implemented by producer organizations affected by the frost events. This allows these organizations to more effectively address the financial consequences of the damage to fruit production. The requirement for Hungary to avoid overcompensation is also crucial to ensure that the support is targeted and does not lead to excessive payments when combined with other forms of assistance.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/165 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128 as regards the annual performance clearance, the multi-annual performance monitoring and the scrutiny of transactions
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/165 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128, focusing on the annual performance clearance, multi-annual performance monitoring, and scrutiny of transactions within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The changes aim to reflect amendments in Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 made by Regulation (EU) 2025/2649, particularly concerning the deletion of references to the annual performance clearance. Additionally, the regulation seeks to streamline processes and reduce administrative burdens for Member States.
The regulation modifies several articles of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/128. It replaces point (c) in Article 5(4) regarding performance reporting, replaces paragraph 5 in Article 7 regarding auditing of the performance reporting system, replaces Article 13(1) regarding monthly payments, amends Article 28 concerning action plans for multi-annual performance monitoring by clarifying implementation deadlines and reporting requirements, amends Article 33(1) regarding the clearance of accounts, deletes Article 36, replaces Article 46 regarding the selection of undertakings for scrutiny, and replaces Annex II and Part 2.1 of Annex VI with updated texts. The key changes involve clarifying the deadlines for remedial actions in action plans, mandating the use of specific templates in the SFC2021 system for these plans, and providing greater flexibility in the selection of undertakings for scrutiny based on risk analysis.
The most important provisions for practical use include the revised procedure for action plans related to multi-annual performance monitoring, particularly the strict deadlines for implementation and the requirement to use the SFC2021 templates. The increased flexibility in selecting undertakings for scrutiny, based on risk analysis, is also significant as it allows Member States to focus their resources more efficiently.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/148 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system in the common agricultural policy
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/148 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173, which lays down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 concerning the integrated administration and control system in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The amending regulation streamlines quality assessments of agricultural land monitoring systems and removes the requirement for farmers to report on the use of plant protection products within the geo-spatial application, aiming to reduce administrative burdens. These changes are based on experience gained during the initial years of implementation and are intended to simplify procedures for Member States and farmers.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 details the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1173, specifically:
* It replaces the provision concerning the form and content of the assessment report on the quality of the identification system for agricultural parcels, the geo-spatial application system, and the area monitoring system, merging the three quality assessments into one.
* It replaces Article 2 of the original regulation with updated requirements for the quality assessment report, including the form of submission, the information it must contain, and the actions to be taken in case of deficiencies.
* It deletes point (f) from Article 8(3) of the original regulation, which required the geo-spatial application to include information on the use of plant protection products.
Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from 1 January 2026.
The most important provisions of this act are those that simplify the reporting and assessment processes for Member States and farmers. The merging of the three quality assessments into one reduces the administrative burden for Member States. The removal of the requirement to report on the use of plant protection products in the geo-spatial application is likely the most significant change for farmers, as it eliminates a redundant reporting obligation.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/159 of 21 January 2026 on temporary emergency measures for Hungary derogating from a provision of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891, to resolve specific problems in the fruit and vegetables sector caused by severe adverse meteorological events
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/159 introduces temporary emergency measures for Hungary, allowing a derogation from certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891. The purpose is to address specific problems in the fruit and vegetables sector in Hungary caused by severe frost events in April and May 2025. These events significantly damaged fruit production, leading to substantial losses for producers.
The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 provides a temporary derogation for the year 2025 from Article 11(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891. This allows producer organizations in Hungary, affected by the specified meteorological events, to sell products from non-member producers regardless of the economic value of that activity compared to the organization’s marketed production. It also requires these organizations to prove to the Hungarian competent authority that they meet the conditions for this derogation. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and application period of the regulation, which is from the date of publication until 22 January 2027.
The most important provision is Article 1(1), which grants the temporary derogation. This allows affected producer organizations in Hungary greater flexibility in managing their operations in response to the significant reduction in fruit production caused by the adverse weather conditions. This derogation aims to alleviate the economic impact on these organizations by allowing them to supplement their reduced production with products from non-members without being restricted by the usual economic value thresholds.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 as regards the content of the CAP Strategic Plans
This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/163, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2289 regarding the content of the CAP Strategic Plans.
The amending regulation adjusts the requirements for Member States when designing and presenting their CAP Strategic Plans, taking into account changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2025/2649. These adjustments concern payments related to Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards, the definition of permanent grassland, the introduction of a new type of intervention for crisis payments, and the system of conditionality. The goal is to ensure completeness, comparability, and effective assessment of the CAP Strategic Plans.
The key changes include:
1. Clarification on payments for commitments related to GAEC standards 2 and 9, requiring Member States to specify which requirements are eligible for payments.
2. Updates to the definition of permanent grassland, obliging Member States to provide information on their decisions regarding the classification of land.
3. Inclusion of a new intervention type for crisis payments to farmers, requiring details on loss calculation and compensation mechanisms.
4. Removal of the requirement to describe simplified controls for conditionality for small farmers, as they are now exempt from the conditionality system.
For those involved in the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly Member States responsible for drafting and implementing CAP Strategic Plans, this regulation provides updated guidelines on the information that must be included in their plans. Understanding these changes is crucial for ensuring compliance and effective implementation of the CAP.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/170 of 21 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130 as regards the information concerning derogations from certain GAEC standards and information reported for the purposes of the annual performance clearance procedure in the annual performance report
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/170 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130, focusing on the content and presentation of the annual performance report under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The key changes involve removing the reporting requirements related to derogations from GAEC standards, as these were specific to the 2023 claim year and have already been addressed. Additionally, the regulation eliminates information previously required for the annual performance clearance procedure, which has been discontinued from the 2025 financial year onwards.
The regulation modifies the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/130. It removes section 1.4, which dealt with reporting on the effects of derogations from GAEC standards. It also replaces section 2, which concerns quantitative and qualitative information on deviations of values of result indicators from milestones. The revised section 2 focuses on achieved values of result indicators, realised outputs (unit amounts), additional national financing, and aggregated values of output indicators. It also includes provisions for reporting on the use of financial instruments in rural development interventions and specific information on oilseeds, cotton, and transitional national aid.
The most important provisions for users are the updated reporting requirements for the annual performance report. Member States need to ensure that their reports for the financial year 2025 and subsequent years comply with the revised structure and content, particularly regarding the presentation of achieved values of result indicators, realised outputs, and the justifications for any shortfalls from milestones. The regulation explicitly states the deadlines for including mandatory justifications for shortfalls in the annual performance reports due in 2026 and 2027.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/144 of 14 January 2026 on the approval of a Union amendment to the product specification of the protected designation of origin Mátra/Mátrai pursuant to of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/144 approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Mátra/Mátrai’. This amendment, proposed by Hungary, concerns the specific characteristics of the wine produced in the Mátra region. The approval follows the procedure outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which governs geographical indications for various agricultural products.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasons for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally approves the Union amendment to the product specification for ‘Mátra/Mátrai’, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal. This regulation essentially updates the existing PDO to reflect changes requested by the producer group in the Mátra region.
The most important provision is Article 1, which gives legal effect to the amended product specification for ‘Mátra/Mátrai’. This means that the updated requirements for producing wine under this PDO are now officially recognized and protected within the EU. Producers in the Mátra region must adhere to these new specifications to market their wine under the ‘Mátra/Mátrai’ PDO.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/119 of 20 January 2026 concerning the denial of authorisation of a preparation of carvacrol as a feed additive belonging to the category of zootechnical additives for weaned piglets
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/119 addresses the denial of authorisation for a specific feed additive, a preparation of carvacrol, intended for use in weaned piglets. The regulation concludes that the applicant, Techna France Nutrition, has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of carvacrol as a zootechnical additive, specifically regarding its positive impact on animal production, performance, or welfare. As a result, the Commission has decided to deny the authorisation for this additive.
The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 explicitly denies the authorisation of the carvacrol preparation as a feed additive for weaned piglets within the specified category and functional group. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, making it binding and directly applicable in all Member States. There are no changes compared to previous versions, as this is the first regulation regarding this specific application for carvacrol as a feed additive.
The most important provision of this regulation is Article 1, which directly prohibits the use of the carvacrol preparation as a feed additive for weaned piglets. This means that companies and farmers are not allowed to use this specific preparation of carvacrol in feed for weaned piglets within the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/173 of 20 January 2026 amending Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds
This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/173 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, focusing on the lists of third countries authorized for the entry into the Union of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. The regulation responds to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It temporarily suspends imports from specific zones affected by these outbreaks while re-authorizing imports from other zones where the situation has been resolved.
The regulation is structured around amending two key annexes of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404. Annex V, concerning poultry and germinal products, and Annex XIV, concerning fresh meat of poultry and game birds, are both updated to reflect the latest HPAI outbreaks. The amendments involve adding new restricted zones in the United Kingdom and the United States due to recent outbreaks, while also removing restrictions on certain zones in Canada and the United Kingdom following the resolution of earlier outbreaks. This is achieved by modifying the tables in Section B of Part 1 of Annexes V and XIV, which list authorized third countries, territories, or zones. Part 2 of Annex V is also updated to include descriptions of the newly added zones in the UK and US.
The most important provisions for users are the specific changes to the zones listed for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States in Annexes V and XIV. Businesses involved in the import of poultry, germinal products, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds from these countries need to be aware of the updated lists to ensure compliance with EU regulations. The regulation provides specific coordinates and dates related to the outbreaks, which are crucial for determining whether specific consignments are permitted to enter the Union.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/145 of 14 January 2026 establishing a fisheries closure for blue ling in area 6 and 7; United Kingdom and international waters of 5 for vessels flying the flag of Spain
This Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/145 establishes a fisheries closure for blue ling in specific areas for vessels flying the flag of Spain. It declares that Spain’s fishing quota for blue ling in area 6 and 7, including United Kingdom and international waters of 5, has been exhausted for 2025. As a result, the regulation prohibits fishing for blue ling in these areas by Spanish vessels from a specified date. However, it allows for the continued processing, transshipping, and landing of blue ling caught before the closure date, and outlines procedures for dealing with unintended catches.
The Regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states quota exhaustion. Article 2 outlines the prohibitions, allowing for activities related to catches taken before the closure date and specifying the handling of unintended catches. Article 3 defines the entry into force of the Regulation. The Annex specifies the Member State (Spain), the stock (Blue ling), the zone (6 and 7; United Kingdom and international waters of 5), and the closing date (8 December 2025). There are no direct changes to previous versions, as this is a specific regulation for a particular year and quota.
The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the prohibitions and the handling of unintended catches. Specifically, Article 2 clarifies what activities are prohibited after the closure date and how unintended catches should be managed in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. The closing date of 8 December 2025, as specified in the Annex, is also crucial for compliance.
Urteil des Gerichts (Sechste Kammer) vom 21. Januar 2026.#HTG GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung der Unionswortmarke DEINS – Absolutes Eintragungshindernis – Fehlende Unterscheidungskraft – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-266/25.
This document is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the trademark application for the word “DEINS.” The court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to reject the trademark application based on the grounds that the word lacks distinctive character.
The structure of the judgment includes an introduction outlining the request for annulment of the EUIPO’s decision, a summary of the background of the dispute, including the application for the trademark and its subsequent rejection, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal reasoning of the court. The court examines whether the trademark “DEINS” has a distinctive character that would allow consumers to identify the products as originating from a specific company. The court considers the relevant public and territory, which is the German-speaking public in Germany and Austria, for whom the word “deins” is understood as a possessive pronoun meaning “yours.”
The court concludes that the word “deins” would be perceived merely as a promotional message or a simple advertising slogan, rather than an indicator of the commercial origin of the goods. The court finds that the EUIPO was not required to provide a specific reasoning for each product or service because the purely laudatory or informative indication of the trademark applies equally to all the goods and services in question. The court rules that the trademark is devoid of any distinctive character and dismisses the applicant’s appeal.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2026.Djchem Chemicals Poland S.A. and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v European Commission.Environment and protection of human health – Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 – Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and certain mixtures – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/197 – Classification and labelling of 1,4-Benzenediamine, N,N’-mixed Ph and tolyl derivs. – Criteria for classification of a substance in the hazard class reproductive toxicity category 1B – Multi-constituent substance – Relevance of adverse effects in humans – Read-across – Manifest errors of assessment – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Rights of the defence.Case T-174/24.
This is a judgment of the General Court regarding the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/197, specifically concerning the classification and labeling of 1,4-Benzenediamine, N,N’-mixed Ph and tolyl derivs. (DAPD) as a reproductive toxicant category 1B. The applicants, Djchem Chemicals Poland S.A. and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, challenged the regulation, arguing that the classification was not justified based on available scientific evidence and that the Commission made several errors in its assessment. The General Court dismissed the action, upholding the Commission’s decision.
The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the background to the dispute, outlining the roles of the involved parties and the regulatory history leading to the contested regulation. It then presents the forms of order sought by the applicants and the Commission. The core of the judgment is the “Law” section, where the court addresses the applicants’ pleas in law. These pleas include arguments about the lack of evidence for adverse effects in humans, failure to consider relevant information, failure to use the read-across approach, and infringements of various articles of Regulation No. 1272/2008. The court systematically rejects each of these arguments. Finally, the judgment addresses the allocation of costs.
The most important provisions of the act relate to the criteria for classifying a substance as a reproductive toxicant, particularly category 1B, and the weight of evidence required to support such a classification. The court emphasizes that the classification does not require “clear evidence” of relevance to humans, but rather a “strong presumption” based on animal studies, unless there is information that casts doubt on the relevance of those effects for humans. The judgment also clarifies that hazard assessment under Regulation No. 1272/2008 is distinct from risk assessment under Regulation No. 1907/2006 (REACH), meaning that exposure scenarios are not relevant in determining the classification of a substance.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 January 2026.Lantmännen ek för and Lantmännen Biorefineries AB v European Commission.Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Markets for ethanol and for bioethanol – Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Staggered ‘hybrid’ procedure – Presumption of innocence – Impartiality.Case T-93/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a competition case in the ethanol and bioethanol markets. The case concerns an appeal by Lantmännen ek för and Lantmännen Biorefineries AB against a European Commission decision that found them in violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement for participating in a coordinated effort to influence wholesale ethanol prices. The Commission’s decision was based on a “staggered ‘hybrid’ procedure,” which involved a settlement with one party (Abengoa) followed by a standard procedure for the remaining parties.
The judgment focuses on whether the Commission, in its decision-making process, respected the presumption of innocence and maintained impartiality towards Lantmännen. Lantmännen argued that the Commission’s use of a staggered hybrid procedure and the content of the settlement decision with Abengoa prejudiced their case. The General Court dismisses Lantmännen’s action, finding that the Commission did not violate the presumption of innocence or its duty of impartiality.
The key points of the judgment are:
1. **Hybrid Procedure:** The Court confirms that the Commission is entitled to use a hybrid procedure, settling with some parties while continuing standard proceedings against others, as long as the presumption of innocence is respected.
2. **Presumption of Innocence:** The Court finds that the Commission took sufficient precautions in drafting the settlement decision to avoid prejudging Lantmännen’s guilt. References to Lantmännen in the settlement decision were deemed necessary to explain Abengoa’s conduct and did not constitute a clear declaration of guilt.
3. **Duty of Impartiality:** The Court concludes that Lantmännen failed to demonstrate any legitimate doubts about the Commission’s impartiality. The Commission’s analysis and reasoning were based on a detailed examination of the ethanol market and the evidence against Lantmännen.
This judgment clarifies the conditions under which the Commission can use hybrid procedures in competition cases and reinforces the importance of respecting the presumption of innocence and maintaining impartiality.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 January 2026.D S.A. v P S.A.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Compensation to passengers in the event of a long delay or cancellation of a flight – Exemption – Extraordinary circumstances – Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Air traffic management decision – Allocation of delayed departure slots due to adverse weather conditions – Possibility of relying on a flight subsequent to that affected by the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance.Case T-134/25.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union concerning passenger rights in the event of flight delays or cancellations, specifically focusing on the interpretation of “extraordinary circumstances” as a defense against compensation claims. The case originated from a dispute between D S.A., a company that acquired a passenger’s right to compensation, and P S.A., an airline, regarding a delayed flight from Izmir to Warsaw. The delay was partly attributed to air traffic management decisions due to adverse weather conditions.
The judgment clarifies the scope of “extraordinary circumstances” under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. It addresses whether all air traffic management decisions, regardless of their duration or reason, constitute such circumstances and whether a carrier can invoke an air traffic management decision affecting a previous flight in the rotation as a defense.
The court rules that not every air traffic management decision automatically qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance.” To be considered as such, the decision must be beyond the actual control of the airline, meaning the airline did not contribute to it. The judgment also clarifies that an airline can rely on an air traffic management decision affecting a prior flight using the same aircraft as an “extraordinary circumstance,” provided there is a direct causal link between that decision and the delay of the subsequent flight. The national court is responsible for assessing this causal link, considering the airline’s operational conditions.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2026.Synonym Software, SA de CV v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark PAYKIT – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Equal treatment – Principle of sound administration.Case T-78/25.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for an EU trade mark. The court upheld the EUIPO’s (European Union Intellectual Property Office) decision to refuse the registration of the word mark “PAYKIT” for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 42, finding it descriptive and lacking distinctiveness.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment addresses an action brought by Synonym Software, SA de CV, against the EUIPO’s decision to reject their application for the EU word mark “PAYKIT”. The court examines whether the EUIPO was correct in its assessment that the mark is descriptive (Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) and lacks distinctiveness (Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001). The court also considers whether the EUIPO violated the principles of equal treatment and sound administration. The court dismisses the applicant’s claims, finding that the mark “PAYKIT” is indeed descriptive of the goods and services for which registration was sought, as it would be understood by the relevant public as a “payment toolkit”. The court also finds no violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c)):** The court emphasizes that a mark is descriptive if it directly and specifically relates to the characteristics of the goods or services, allowing the relevant public to immediately perceive a description without further thought.
* **Relevant Public:** The court identifies the relevant public as the English-speaking public of the European Union, as the mark consists of English words.
* **Equal Treatment and Sound Administration:** The court clarifies that while the EUIPO must consider its previous decisions, it is not bound by them and must ensure a stringent examination of each case to prevent improper registration of trade marks.
* **Autonomy of the EU Trade Mark System:** The court reiterates that the EU trade mark system is independent of national systems, meaning that registration of a mark in a Member State or a third country does not guarantee registration as an EU trade mark.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2026.Universal Brand Group Pty Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Elton – Earlier national word mark ELON – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-561/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Universal Brand Group Pty Ltd to register the figurative mark “Elton” for goods in Classes 9 and 11, specifically software and heating apparatus for beverages, including coffee machines. Elon Group AB opposed the registration based on their earlier Swedish word mark “ELON,” arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion.
The structure of the judgment is as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trade mark application, the opposition, and the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. It then presents the forms of order sought by the applicant (Universal Brand Group), EUIPO, and the intervener (Elon Group AB). The judgment proceeds to address the admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the Court. The core of the judgment focuses on a single plea: the alleged infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. This involves an assessment of the relevant public, a comparison of the goods in question, the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and a detailed comparison of the signs (visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity). Finally, the judgment assesses the likelihood of confusion and determines the allocation of costs.
The most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the comparison of the signs and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The court found that the word element “elton” was the most distinctive element of the mark applied for. It concluded that the signs at issue had a high degree of visual similarity and at least an above-average degree of phonetic similarity. The court also addressed the conceptual similarity, considering whether the signs would be associated with celebrities Elon Musk and Elton John. Ultimately, the court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that there was a likelihood of confusion and dismissing the action brought by Universal Brand Group. The inadmissibility of new evidence presented for the first time before the Court is also an important aspect of the judgment.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2026.DT v Eulex Kosovo.Arbitration clause – Common foreign and security policy – International civilian staff of EU international missions – Consecutive fixed-term contracts – Termination of the applicant’s contract – Right to be heard – Obligation to state reasons – Principle of sound administration – Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff – Misuse of powers – Equal treatment – Legitimate expectations.Case T-218/24.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between DT, a former member of the international contract staff of Eulex Kosovo, and Eulex Kosovo itself. DT is contesting the termination of his employment contract and seeking compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a result of this termination. The court examines the legality of Eulex Kosovo’s actions in terminating DT’s contract, focusing on whether his rights were respected and whether the termination was justified.
The judgment is structured as follows:
* **Background:** Details the establishment and extensions of the Eulex Kosovo mission, DT’s employment history with the mission, and the circumstances surrounding the termination of his contract.
* **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the specific requests made by DT, including declarations of unlawfulness, annulment of decisions, and compensation for damages.
* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment, addressing the jurisdiction of the Court, the applicable law, and the specific pleas raised by DT. It is divided into subsections that address the jurisdiction of the court, the applicable law, the abolition of the post held by the applicant, the claims for declaring the acts at issue unlawful, and the claims for compensation.
* The Court first establishes its jurisdiction based on the arbitration clause in DT’s employment contract.
* It then clarifies that while contractual provisions govern the dispute, EU law principles and the Charter of Fundamental Rights also apply.
* The Court addresses DT’s challenge to the revised deployment plan that led to the abolition of his post, ultimately concluding that it lacks jurisdiction to review the legality of this plan as it relates to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
* The Court then examines the pleas raised by DT, including infringement of the right to be heard, failure to state reasons, violation of legitimate expectations, and breaches of various principles of EU law and the Eulex Kosovo’s internal procedures.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.
The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use:
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserts its jurisdiction based on the arbitration clause in the employment contract, allowing it to hear the case.
* **Right to be heard:** The Court examines whether Eulex Kosovo adequately respected DT’s right to be heard before terminating his contract, as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and his employment contract.
* **Obligation to state reasons:** The Court assesses whether Eulex Kosovo provided sufficient reasons for the termination of DT’s contract, as required by EU law and his employment contract.
* **Legitimate expectations:** The Court considers whether Eulex Kosovo violated DT’s legitimate expectations based on assurances he allegedly received regarding the security of his position.
* **Principle of equal treatment:** The Court analyzes whether DT was treated differently from other staff members in a comparable situation, potentially violating the principle of equal treatment.
* **Contractual vs. non-contractual liability:** The Court distinguishes between claims based on contractual liability (breach of contract) and non-contractual liability (tort), determining which legal framework applies to DT’s claims for compensation.
* **CFSP limitations:** The Court acknowledges its limited jurisdiction regarding acts related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which affects its ability to review the legality of the revised deployment plan.
* **Measures of inquiry:** The Court decides whether to grant DT’s requests for measures of inquiry, such as hearing witnesses, to gather additional evidence.
* **Costs:** The Court determines which party is responsible for covering the legal costs of the proceedings.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2026.Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved stripe and an irregular triangle inside a black rectangle – Earlier EU figurative marks representing one or more white curved stripes ascending to the right – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-43/25.
This judgment concerns a dispute between Puma SE and Ningbo Gongfang Commercial Management Co. Ltd regarding the registration of an EU trade mark. The case revolves around Puma’s opposition to Ningbo Gongfang’s application for a figurative mark featuring a curved stripe and an irregular triangle inside a black rectangle, based on Puma’s earlier EU figurative marks representing one or more white curved stripes ascending to the right.
The General Court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The court based its decision on a visual comparison of the signs, determining that the differences in geometric configuration, the presence of a black background in Ningbo Gongfang’s mark, and the orientation of the stripes were significant enough to prevent confusion among consumers. The court also found that the marks were conceptually dissimilar, as they did not convey any particular meaning.
The key provision of law at issue is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits the registration of a trade mark if it is similar to an earlier trade mark and covers similar goods or services, creating a likelihood of confusion among the public. The court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, taking into account all relevant factors, including the similarity of the signs and the goods or services, as well as the perception of the relevant public. The court also noted that the comparison of the signs must be carried out on the basis of the shapes and orientations in which those signs are registered or applied for.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2026.Casa Ermelinda Freitas – Vinhos, S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative trade mark EF – Earlier EU word mark EF – ERMELINDA FREITAS – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-71/25.
This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign applied for registration as an EU trade mark, which features the letters “EF,” and an earlier EU word mark “EF – ERMELINDA FREITAS.” The case revolves around an opposition filed by the holder of the earlier trade mark against the registration of the newer mark.
The structure of the judgment includes an overview of the case’s background, the claims made by the applicant (Casa Ermelinda Freitas – Vinhos, S. A.), the positions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the intervener (Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH), and the legal reasoning of the court. The court’s analysis focuses on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. The court assesses the similarity of the signs, the goods they cover, and the relevant public’s perception.
The court’s key findings are that while the signs share the letters “EF,” the earlier mark is dominated by the element “ermelinda freitas,” and the stylized representation of “EF” in the contested figurative mark is distinctive. These differences, combined with the only partial similarity of the goods, lead the court to conclude that there is no likelihood of confusion. The court emphasizes that consumers are unlikely to associate the two marks, and therefore, the application to annul the EUIPO’s decision is dismissed.
