Review of the EU legislation for 30/01/2026

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/264 – Benchmark Administrators

This regulation updates existing rules for benchmark administrators. It amends Delegated Regulations (EU) 2018/1645 and 2018/1646, ensuring consistent information from all applicants, regardless of location. Applicants now have clear guidelines on employee information, conflict of interest policies, and data retention. For example, applications can be submitted in a language common in international finance. Personal data must not be kept for more than five years. New specific requirements are outlined for interest rate and commodity benchmark providers.

Commission Directive (EU) 2026/192 – Toy Safety Directive

This directive amends the Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC, addressing the use of cobalt in toys. The directive updates Appendix A of Annex II, now permitting cobalt in stainless steel, as an impurity in nickel, in toy components conducting electricity, and in specific types of magnets. Member States have until July 29, 2026, to adopt this into national law, with application from August 29, 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/246 – ‘Miel de Málaga’ PDO

This regulation officially registers ‘Miel de Málaga’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). This registration, based on a Spanish application, means only honey produced in the Málaga region according to specific standards can be sold under that name, protecting its authenticity within the EU.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/220 – Health Security Committee

This regulation sets procedures for information exchange within the Health Security Committee in response to cross-border health threats. Member States must assess the need for consultation and the Commission will organize consultations quickly. Coordinated risk communication is emphasized. Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/253 is amended to align with these new procedures.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/238 – Tunisia Sanctions

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, updating the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures concerning the situation in Tunisia. The Annex has been changed to delete entries for three individuals and update information related to judicial protection for 24 individuals.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/262 – Iran Sanctions

This regulation amends Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1529, adding four individuals and six entities to the sanctions list. They are sanctioned for their involvement in Iran’s missile and UAV programs, and for supplying UAVs and related technology to Russia. These sanctions typically involve asset freezes and travel bans.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/251 – Sudan Sanctions

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023/2147, adding seven individuals to the sanctions list. These individuals are implicated in undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan, including serious human rights violations. As a result, their assets within the EU are frozen, and they face travel bans.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/267 – Iran Human Rights Sanctions

This regulation adds 15 individuals and six entities to the sanctions list under Regulation (EU) No 359/2011. This is due to the EU’s concerns regarding human rights violations in Iran. The people and organizations will be subject to restrictive measures.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/259 – Russia-Ukraine War Sanctions

This regulation amends Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, adding six individuals to the sanctions list for their role in Russia’s destabilizing activities. The new entries are subject to restrictive measures.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/198 – Wind Tower Anti-Dumping

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 to reflect a company name change. Shanghai Taisheng Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd. is now TSP Wind Power Group Co., Ltd., ensuring the existing anti-dumping duty rate remains applicable under the new name. Any overpaid duties as a result of the name change will be repaid.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/187 – Animal and Goods Imports

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405, which lists countries authorized to export certain animals and goods to the EU. The changes reflect updated control plans and expand the scope to include meat preparations. Ukraine has been removed from some product lists, and updates have been made for countries like Albania, North Macedonia, and Uganda.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/191 – Ceramic Tiles Anti-Dumping

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 to reflect a company name change. Sunshine Tiles Company Private Limited is now Sunhearrt Ceramix Private Limited, ensuring the existing anti-dumping duty rate remains applicable under the new name. Any excess duties due to the name change will be refunded.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/194 – Food and Feed Import Controls

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, adjusting controls on food and feed imports. Increased checks are implemented for items like beans from Bangladesh and palm oil from Côte d’Ivoire due to contamination risks. Decreased checks are implemented for some products due to improving compliance. New items added include strawberries from Egypt because of emerging risks.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/215 – Pesticide Residue Levels

This regulation modifies Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, adjusting the permissible levels of dimoxystrobin, ethephon, and propamocarb in agricultural products. The MRL for propamocarb in lettuce has been lowered. The products already on the market are not subject to the new MRLs, except for ethephon in apples and blueberries, and propamocarb in lettuces.

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/249 – Fishing Opportunities

This regulation sets fishing opportunities for various fish stocks for the years 2026-2028. This includes catch limits and fishing effort limits. There are amendments to adjust fishing quotas for blue whiting. There are specific measures for European eel, cod, and seabass.

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/271 – Iran Sanctions (UAV components)

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1529, updating the list of items prohibited for export to Iran. This update targets additional components for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missiles.

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/266 – Mediterranean and Black Sea Fishing Opportunities

This regulation establishes fishing opportunities for the Mediterranean and Black Seas for 2026. Measures are applied to European eel, red coral, and common dolphinfish. The catch limits are set for turbot, anchovy and sardines.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/189 – Shellac as Food Additive

This regulation modifies the regulations regarding shellac (E 904) as a food additive. Now, shellac can be used as a glazing agent for foods for special medical purposes in tablet form. Specifications for shellac are also updated by removing information related to wax-containing shellac.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/190 – Food Additives (Infant and Young Children)

This regulation modifies regulations concerning food additives, including carrageenan (E 407), locust bean gum (E 410), guar gum (E 412), and xanthan gum (E 415). It changes the conditions of use for these additives in foods for infants and young children and updates their specifications to reflect recent scientific advice.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – PB vs SRB

The Court set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the SRB’s decision not to reclassify PB. The Court emphasized that the statement of reasons for a decision must generally be communicated to the person concerned at the same time as the decision itself. The SRB was ordered to bear the costs of both the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Irrevocable Payment Commitments (IPCs)

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ECB’s power to impose the contested prudential requirements. The judgment confirms that the ECB has broad supervisory powers to ensure the safety and soundness of credit institutions. It includes the power to impose additional own funds requirements and other measures to address identified risks.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Right to be heard

The CJEU sets aside the General Court’s judgment and refers the case back to the General Court to rule on the remaining pleas. The CJEU clarifies that the right to be heard primarily applies to individual measures, not to measures of general application. The General Court cannot grant an annulment that goes beyond what the applicant requested.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Mutual recognition of confiscation orders

The Court ruled that a mortgage creditor can be considered a “bona fide third party” if they were unaware that the mortgage was intended to help the accused avoid confiscation. The executing Member State’s judicial authority may refuse to recognize or execute a confiscation order if it prejudices the rights of such a mortgage creditor.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Fixed-Term Work

The CJEU clarified that a measure of converting a fixed-term contract into an open-ended contract in the event of abusive recourse to the former is not mandated by Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement. The EU Court leaves it to the national court to determine whether the measures provided for by national law are an effective sanction for the established abuse.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Customs Value

The CJEU clarified whether customs authorities can use a “lowest acceptable price” (LAP) to determine the customs value of imported goods when they suspect undervaluation. It was stated that LAP cannot be used as a minimum value or applied arbitrarily, and the transaction value should be used whenever possible.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

The CJEU clarified that a measure regarding the liability of a legal person for breaches of anti-money laundering regulations does not depend on a prior finding of guilt against a specific natural person who acted on its behalf. A limitation period of three years for bringing proceedings and five years for imposing a penalty is compatible with EU law.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Competition Law

The judgment confirms that actions for pre-trial discovery are covered by the Directive and sets out the standard for assessing the plausibility of damages claims. Demonstrating the plausibility of a damages claim does not require proving that it is more likely than not that the conditions for liability are met; it is sufficient to show that the assumption that these conditions are met is reasonably acceptable.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Fixed-term teachers

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement does not preclude national case-law under certain conditions: All limitations and conditions for retrospective grant of the card and compensation must apply equally to both fixed-term and permanent teachers, and the procedural rules governing the exercise of the right to compensation must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Unfair Trading Practices

Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 2019/633 does not prevent national laws from classifying multiple payment requests as a single infringement, as long as the enforcement authority has the discretion to impose a fine that is effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, considering the nature, duration, recurrence, and severity of the infringement.

Court of Justice of the European Union judgment – Asylum Procedures

Information relating to the manner in which an investigation was conducted by the authorities of the host Member State in the country of origin of that third-country national for the purpose of determining the merits of his or her application is covered by the concept of ‘information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made.

Notice from the Official Journal of the European Union – Bankruptcy Proceedings

Claimants and interested parties in the Gable Insurance AG bankruptcy case should take note of the date, time, and location to attend the hearing or ensure their representation is present. This hearing is crucial for the review of submitted claims and will likely impact the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/264 of 27 October 2025 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1645 as regards the form and content of an application for recognition with the European Securities and Markets Authority and in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1646 as regards the information to be provided in an application for authorisation and registration

This is a description of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/264.

**Essence of the Act:**

The regulation amends existing regulatory technical standards concerning the information required for applications related to benchmark administrators. It updates Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1645 regarding applications for recognition with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) by third-country administrators and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1646 concerning applications for authorization and registration by EU administrators. The amendments aim to ensure consistent and uniform information is provided by all applicants, regardless of their location, and to reflect changes in supervisory responsibilities. The regulation also specifies requirements for information on employees, conflicts of interest, and compliance procedures.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation is structured into three articles and three annexes.

* **Article 1** details the amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1645, including adding a paragraph on the retention of personal data and modifying the language requirements for applications. It also introduces Article 2a, specifying information requirements for interest rate and commodity benchmark providers. Finally, it replaces the original annex with a new one, outlining the information to be provided in an application for recognition.
* **Article 2** outlines the changes to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1646. It adds a paragraph on personal data retention, inserts Article 1a on the format of applications, and replaces Annexes I and II with updated requirements for authorization and registration applications, respectively.
* **Article 3** specifies the entry into force of the regulation.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Language of Application:** Applications for recognition can be submitted in a language customary in international finance or an official language of the Member State where the legal representative is established.
* **Employee Information:** Applicants must provide detailed information on all employees involved in benchmark provision, including their skills, knowledge, and experience.
* **Self-Declaration:** Members of the management body and oversight function must provide a self-declaration regarding any criminal convictions or disciplinary proceedings.
* **Conflicts of Interest:** Applicants must provide detailed policies and procedures for identifying, managing, and mitigating conflicts of interest.
* **Data Retention:** Personal data related to the good repute of the management body and oversight function should be kept for no longer than five years after the person has ceased to perform their function.
* **Specific Benchmark Information:** Specific requirements are outlined for applicants providing only interest rate benchmarks or only commodity benchmarks.
* **Electronic Submission:** Applications should be submitted by electronic means.

Commission Directive (EU) 2026/192 of 28 January 2026 amending Appendix A of Annex II to Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys, as regards cobalt

This Commission Directive (EU) 2026/192 amends the Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC, specifically addressing the use of cobalt in toys. The directive updates Appendix A of Annex II to the Toy Safety Directive to include specific permitted uses of cobalt, a substance classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR). It aims to ensure that toys containing cobalt are safe for children by allowing its use only in specific, evaluated scenarios.

The directive consists of four articles. Article 1 introduces the amendment to Appendix A of Annex II to Directive 2009/48/EC, listing the permitted uses of cobalt. Article 2 outlines the timeline for Member States to adopt and publish the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive, setting a deadline for adoption by July 29, 2026, and application from August 29, 2026. It also requires Member States to communicate the main provisions of national law to the Commission. Article 3 states that the Directive will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 4 specifies that the Directive is addressed to the Member States.

The most important provisions of this directive are those that permit the use of cobalt under specific conditions: (1) in toys and toy components made of stainless steel, as an impurity in the nickel contained in the stainless steel; (2) in toy components intended to conduct an electric current; and (3) in neodymium-based magnets used in toys if those magnets cannot be swallowed or inhaled. These exceptions are based on the Scientific Committee’s assessment that exposure to cobalt in these scenarios is either negligible or can be controlled to ensure safety.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/246 of 23 January 2026 on the registration of the geographical indication ‘Miel de Málaga’ (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/246 officially registers ‘Miel de Málaga’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications. This registration is based on an application from Spain and follows the procedures outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Since no objections were received, the geographical indication is now formally recognized and protected within the EU.

The regulation consists of a preamble that cites the relevant legal basis and describes the procedural steps taken, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers ‘Miel de Málaga’ (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications, as per Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation repeals and replaces the previous Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

The most important provision is Article 1, which grants ‘Miel de Málaga’ legal protection as a PDO within the EU. This means that only honey produced in the Málaga region of Spain, according to the specified production standards, can be marketed under that name. This protection helps to preserve the authenticity and reputation of ‘Miel de Málaga’ and prevents misuse of the name by products not originating from that region or not meeting the required standards.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/220 of 29 January 2026 laying down the procedures necessary for the uniform implementation of the information exchange, consultation and coordination of response within the Health Security Committee and amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/253

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/220 establishes the procedures for information exchange, consultation, and coordination within the Health Security Committee (HSC) in response to serious cross-border health threats. It aims to ensure a uniform and coordinated approach among Member States and the Commission when dealing with such threats, building upon the framework set by Regulation (EU) 2022/2371. The regulation also amends Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/253 by deleting certain articles to align with the new procedures.

The Regulation is structured around several key articles. Article 1 defines the subject matter. Article 2 outlines the process for requesting consultation and coordination within the HSC, emphasizing the use of the Early Warning and Response System (EWRS). Article 3 details the procedures for exchanging information related to health threats, promoting effective communication channels between competent authorities. Article 4 focuses on the consultation and coordination of responses within the HSC, including timelines for consultations and information sharing regarding public health measures. Article 5 addresses risk and crisis communication, emphasizing coordinated messaging at the EU level. Article 6 ensures support for the EU Integrated Political Crisis Response Arrangements by facilitating information exchange and coordination between the HSC and IPCR secretariats. Finally, Article 7 amends Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/253, and Article 8 specifies the regulation’s entry into force.

The most important provisions for practical use include the procedures for requesting consultation and coordination (Article 2), the timelines for information exchange and consultation (Article 4), and the emphasis on coordinated risk and crisis communication (Article 5). Member States must promptly assess the need for consultation and coordination following an alert, and the Commission is required to organize consultations within a defined timeframe. The regulation also mandates that Member States inform and consult with each other before adopting or terminating public health measures, ensuring a coordinated response to serious cross-border health threats.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/238 of 29 January 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/238 amends Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities, and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia. The regulation updates the list of individuals subject to these measures, specifically targeting those involved in the misappropriation of public funds.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, which includes deleting entries for three individuals and updating information related to the rights of defense and judicial protection for 24 individuals.

The most important provisions of this regulation are the specific amendments to Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 101/2011. These changes directly affect the individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures, as well as the obligations of EU member states in implementing these measures. The deletion of entries removes individuals from the sanctions regime, while the updated information on the rights of defense and judicial protection ensures that the measures are applied in accordance with due process and fundamental rights.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/262 of 29 January 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 concerning restrictive measures in view of Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region

This is an analysis of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/262.

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation amends Council Regulation (EU) 2023/1529, adding four individuals and six entities to the list of those subject to restrictive measures. These measures are in response to Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as its support to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. The listed individuals and entities are deemed to be involved in Iran’s missile and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs, and in the supply of UAVs and related technology to Russia.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.

* **Article 1** states that Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation.
* **Article 2** specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
* The **Annex** provides detailed information on the individuals and entities added to the list, including their names, identifying information, reasons for listing, and the date of listing.

The listed individuals include Amir Radfar, Hossein Hemsi, Armin Ghorsi Anbaran, and Hossein Bakshayesh, all holding key positions in companies involved in missile and UAV production or supply. The listed entities include Sahara Thunder, Fanavaran Sanat Ertebatat Company (FSE), Pishgaman Tejarat Rafi Novin Co., Arsang Safe Trading Co., Asia Marine Crown Agency, and Khojir Missile Development and Production, all implicated in the supply of UAVs, missile components, or related technologies to Russia or in the development of Iran’s missile program.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

The most important provisions for use are those contained in the Annex, which detail the individuals and entities now subject to restrictive measures. These measures likely include asset freezes and travel bans for individuals, and prohibitions on making funds or economic resources available to the listed entities. Anyone dealing with the listed individuals and entities needs to ensure they are in full compliance with Regulation (EU) 2023/1529, as amended by this implementing regulation, to avoid violating EU sanctions.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/251 of 29 January 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2147 concerning restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan

This Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/251 amends Regulation (EU) 2023/2147, which concerns restrictive measures (sanctions) in response to activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan. The new regulation adds seven individuals to the list of those subject to these restrictive measures, based on their involvement in actions that threaten the peace, stability, or security of Sudan, including serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It has two articles: Article 1 states that Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2023/2147 is amended as per the Annex to this new regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The Annex provides detailed information on the individuals added to the sanctions list, including their identifying information, reasons for listing, and the date of listing.

The most important provision of this act is the inclusion of seven additional individuals in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2023/2147, which means they are now subject to the restrictive measures outlined in the original regulation. These measures typically include asset freezes and travel bans within the EU. The listed individuals include members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), who are identified as being responsible for human rights abuses and undermining Sudan’s political transition.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/267 of 29 January 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran

This is an analysis of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/267 of 29 January 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.

This regulation adds 15 individuals and six entities to the list of those subject to restrictive measures as outlined in Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011. These additions are based on the EU’s concerns regarding the human rights situation in Iran, particularly the use of violence, arbitrary detention, and intimidation tactics against demonstrators. The listed individuals and entities are deemed responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran.

The structure of the regulation is simple: it amends Annex I of the original Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 by adding new entries. The annex provides detailed information for each listed person and entity, including their name, identifying information, reasons for listing, and the date of listing. The reasons for listing typically cite involvement in human rights violations, such as suppressing protests, issuing unfair sentences, or restricting access to information.

The most important provision of this regulation is the updated list in the Annex, which specifies the individuals and entities now subject to restrictive measures. These measures typically include asset freezes and travel bans within the EU. The regulation directly impacts those listed, as well as EU individuals and entities who are prohibited from dealing with them.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/259 of 29 January 2026 implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities

Here’s a breakdown of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/259:

This regulation amends Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642, adding six individuals to the list of those subject to restrictive measures due to their involvement in Russia’s destabilizing activities, particularly in relation to the war against Ukraine. These individuals are being sanctioned for their roles in disseminating propaganda, supporting the Russian government’s policies, and undermining the stability and security of Ukraine and the EU. The regulation directly implements these sanctions, which include asset freezes and travel bans, across all EU member states.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It has two articles: Article 1 amends Annex I of the original Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 by adding new entries. Article 2 states the regulation’s entry into force is on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides detailed information on the individuals being added to the sanctions list, including their identifying information (name, date and place of birth, nationality, function) and a statement of reasons for their designation.

The most important provision is the inclusion of the six individuals in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2024/2642. This means that their assets within the EU are frozen, and they are subject to a travel ban preventing them from entering or transiting through EU member states. The listed reasons for sanctioning each individual are crucial as they provide the legal justification for the measures, focusing on their roles in propaganda, support for the war in Ukraine, and undermining democracy and stability.

****: This regulation directly impacts individuals involved in supporting Russia’s actions against Ukraine, and therefore has implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/198 of 28 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain utility scale steel wind towers originating in the People’s Republic of China

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/198 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239, which imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain utility scale steel wind towers originating in the People’s Republic of China. The amendment concerns a change of name of a company, Shanghai Taisheng Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd., which is now TSP Wind Power Group Co., Ltd. The regulation ensures that the change of name does not affect the company’s entitlement to the anti-dumping duty rate previously assigned to it.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of a preamble outlining the background and reasoning for the amendment, followed by two articles. Article 1 addresses the amendment to the Annex of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2239, specifically replacing the old name with the new one and confirming the applicability of the existing TARIC code. It also addresses the reimbursement of duties paid in excess. Article 2 stipulates the entry into force of the regulation. There are no substantial changes to the original anti-dumping duty, only an update to reflect the company’s new name.

The most important provision is Article 1, which ensures the continuity of the anti-dumping duty rate for TSP Wind Power Group Co., Ltd. under its new name. Furthermore, it ensures that any overpaid duties as a result of the name change will be repaid or remitted, providing legal certainty and financial redress for the company. The regulation also specifies that the name change is effective from 26 March 2025, which is the date the change was registered in the PRC.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/187 of 28 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 as regards the lists of third countries or regions thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of certain animals and goods intended for human consumption in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/187.

**Essence of the Act:**

The regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405, which lists third countries or regions authorized to export certain animals and goods intended for human consumption to the EU, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls. The changes reflect updates in control plans, guarantees provided by third countries, and the scope of products covered. The regulation updates the lists of countries authorized to export specific animal products to the EU, based on their compliance with EU food safety standards and control plans.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.

* **Article 1** outlines the amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405, specifically replacing Articles 8 and 9 and modifying Annexes I, V, VI, VIII, and IX.
* **Article 2** specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms its binding and directly applicable nature in all Member States.
* The **Annex** provides the detailed amendments to Annexes I, V, VI, VIII, and IX of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405, including updated lists of third countries authorized for the entry into the Union of consignments of certain animals and goods intended for human consumption.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Addition of Meat Preparations:** Expands the scope of Articles 8 and 9 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 to include meat preparations of farmed rabbit, wild leporidae, and wild land mammals other than ungulates and leporidae.
* **Updates to Annex I:** Modifies Annex I to reflect the approval of control plans for specific products from various countries, including Albania (crustaceans), North Macedonia (casings), Uganda (aquaculture: finfish and finfish products), and Kyrgyz Republic (honey).
* **Changes Regarding Ukraine:** Deletes Ukraine from Annex V (fresh meat of farmed rabbit and wild leporidae) and Annex VIII (live, chilled, frozen or processed bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods). Also, the remark in Annex IX for Ukraine is changed to ‘aquaculture: finfish and finfish products only’.
* **Inclusion of “O” Designation:** Adds the “O” designation for eggs for Israel and for milk and eggs for Tunisia in Annex I, indicating authorization for shelf-stable composite products containing these ingredients.
* **Updates to Remarks in Annex IX:** Modifies the remarks in Annex IX for Japan and Uganda to specify “aquaculture: finfish and finfish products only.”

****

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/191 of 28 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/191 amends the existing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265, which imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ceramic tiles originating from India and Türkiye. The amendment addresses a change of name of an Indian company, Sunshine Tiles Company Private Limited, which is now called Sunhearrt Ceramix Private Limited. The regulation ensures that the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to the company under its previous name remains valid under its new name.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of two articles. Article 1 amends the annex of the original Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 by replacing the old company name with the new one and clarifies the applicability of the TARIC additional code. It also provides for the repayment or remission of any definitive duties paid in excess due to the name change. Article 2 states that the regulation comes into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The key change is the formal recognition of the company’s name change within the context of the existing anti-dumping duties.

The most important provision is Article 1, which ensures the continuity of the anti-dumping duty rate for Sunhearrt Ceramix Private Limited (formerly Sunshine Tiles Company Private Limited) under the TARIC additional code C924. This prevents any disruption in the application of the anti-dumping duty and ensures that the company continues to be subject to the same conditions as before the name change. Furthermore, the provision for repayment or remission of excess duties paid is crucial for the company to avoid financial disadvantages due to the administrative change.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/194 of 28 January 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 on the temporary increase of official controls and emergency measures governing the entry into the Union of certain goods from certain third countries implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/625 and (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/194 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 regarding temporary increases in official controls and special conditions for the entry of certain goods from specific third countries into the EU. The regulation aims to protect human health by adjusting the levels of control based on recent data and notifications related to potential risks from mycotoxins, pesticide residues, microbiological contamination, Sudan dyes, and plant toxins.

The regulation modifies Annexes I and II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793. Annex I lists food and feed of non-animal origin from specific countries that are subject to a temporary increase of official controls at border control posts and control points. Annex II lists food and feed from certain third countries subject to special conditions for entry into the Union due to contamination risks. The changes include increasing, decreasing, or removing the frequency of identity and physical checks for specific products from certain countries, as well as adding new products and countries to the lists.

Key provisions of the regulation include:
– Increased checks on seem beans and helmet beans from Bangladesh and palm oil from Côte d’Ivoire due to high rates of non-compliance with pesticide residue and Sudan dyes requirements, respectively.
– Decreased checks on oranges from Egypt and lemons from Türkiye due to improved compliance with Union legislation.
– Removal of increased controls on okra and rice from India, turnips from Lebanon, and mixtures of food additives containing locust bean gum from Malaysia and Türkiye, as compliance has improved or risks have been reassessed.
– Increased checks on peppers from Rwanda and Thailand due to high rates of non-compliance with pesticide residue requirements.
– Transferring peppers and calcium carbonate from India from Annex II to Annex I, reducing the need for official certificates but maintaining controls.
– Increased checks on pistachios from Türkiye and pistachios originating from the United States and dispatched from Türkiye due to high rates of aflatoxin contamination.
– Decreased checks on black pepper from Brazil and mandarins and oranges from Türkiye, while still maintaining an increased level of official controls.
– Addition of strawberries from Egypt to Annex I due to emerging risks related to pesticide residues.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/215 of 29 January 2026 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for dimoxystrobin, ethephon and propamocarb in or on certain products

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/215 modifies Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which concerns the maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides in food and feed. The regulation specifically addresses dimoxystrobin, ethephon, and propamocarb. It adjusts the permissible levels of these substances in or on various agricultural products to ensure consumer safety and compliance with updated scientific assessments.

The regulation is structured to amend existing annexes within Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. It removes dimoxystrobin from Annex II and sets MRLs at the product-specific limit of determination (LOD) in Annex V due to the non-renewal of its approval. For ethephon, it adjusts MRLs based on a revised acceptable daily intake (ADI) and a new residue definition for enforcement in cereals. It also lowers the MRL for propamocarb in lettuce due to potential risks identified by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The changes include replacing columns for ethephon and propamocarb in Annex II with updated MRLs for various products and adding a column for dimoxystrobin in Annex V, setting MRLs to the lower limit of analytical determination.

Key provisions include the deletion of MRLs for dimoxystrobin and setting them at the LOD, adjustments to ethephon MRLs in specific products like apples, blueberries, and pineapples, and the lowering of propamocarb MRLs in lettuce. The regulation also specifies that products already on the market before August 19, 2026, are not subject to the new MRLs, except for ethephon in apples and blueberries, and propamocarb in lettuces. This regulation is set to take effect and apply from August 19, 2026, allowing time for Member States and businesses to adapt to the new requirements.

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/249 of 26 January 2026 fixing for 2026, 2027 and 2028 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2025/202

Okay, I can help you with that. Here’s a journalist-style breakdown of Council Regulation (EU) 2026/249:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/249 sets the fishing opportunities for various fish stocks in EU waters and for EU vessels in certain non-EU waters for the years 2026, 2027 and 2028. This includes catch limits (Total Allowable Catches or TACs) and fishing effort limits. The regulation also amends a previous regulation, Regulation (EU) 2025/202, to adjust fishing quotas for blue whiting. The regulation aims to balance the sustainability of fish stocks with the economic needs of the fishing industry, taking into account scientific advice and international agreements.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation is structured into several titles and annexes, covering a wide range of topics:

* **Title I (General Provisions):** Defines the subject matter, scope, and key terms used in the regulation.
* **Title II (Fishing Opportunities for Union Fishing Vessels):** This is the core of the regulation, detailing TACs and allocations for EU vessels, conditions for landing catches, quota exchange mechanisms, fishing effort limits, and specific measures for certain species like European seabass and European eel. It also covers fishing authorizations in third-country waters and fishing opportunities managed by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs).
* **Title III (Fishing Opportunities for Third-Country Fishing Vessels in Union Waters):** Sets out the conditions under which third-country vessels can fish in EU waters, including catch limits and authorized species.
* **Title IV (Final Provisions):** Includes amendments to Regulation (EU) 2025/202, committee procedures, and provisions on entry into force and application.
* **Annexes:** These provide detailed tables listing TACs and quotas for various species and regions, fishing effort limitations, closed areas, and other technical measures.

**Main Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**

The regulation updates the fishing opportunities based on the most recent scientific advice and agreements with third countries and RFMOs. It includes specific measures for stocks like European eel, cod, and seabass, reflecting their conservation status. The amendment to Regulation (EU) 2025/202 specifically addresses quota transfers for blue whiting.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Catch Limits and Quotas:** The detailed tables in Annex I are crucial for determining how much of each species can be caught by each Member State.
* **Conditions for Landing Catches:** Article 7 and related annex provisions outline what to do with catches that are not subject to the landing obligation (the requirement to bring all catches ashore).
* **Quota Exchange Mechanism:** Article 8 establishes a pool for quota exchanges to help Member States manage unavoidable by-catches.
* **Specific Species Measures:** Articles 10-14 lay down important rules for fishing of European seabass, pollack and European eel.
* **Closed Areas and Technical Measures:** Annex IV and Articles 16-22 define areas closed to fishing and technical requirements for fishing gear, aimed at protecting vulnerable stocks.
* **Prohibited Species:** Article 23 lists species that cannot be targeted or retained, even as by-catch.

: This regulation, like many EU regulations related to fisheries, may have implications for Ukraine, especially concerning fishing activities in international waters or any agreements the EU has with third countries that may affect Ukrainian fishing interests. Ukrainians working in the EU fishing sector will also be directly affected by the quotas and regulations outlined in this act.

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/271 of 29 January 2026 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 concerning restrictive measures in view of Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region

Here’s a breakdown of the Council Regulation (EU) 2026/271:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1529, which concerns restrictive measures against Iran in light of its military support to Russia’s war against Ukraine, as well as its support to armed groups and entities in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. The key change involves updating the list of items whose export, sale, transfer, or supply from the EU to Iran is prohibited. This update specifically targets additional components used in the development and production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and missiles.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.
* **Article 1:** States that Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 is amended as per the Annex to this new regulation.
* **Article 2:** Specifies the date of entry into force, which is the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It also confirms the regulation’s binding nature and direct applicability in all Member States.
* The **Annex** replaces the original Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2023/1529 entirely. Annex II provides an updated “LIST OF ITEMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2”. This list details specific goods and technologies that are now subject to export restrictions. The list is categorized (e.g., Special materials and related equipment, Materials processing, Electronics) and includes descriptions and corresponding HS/CN codes for each item.

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

* The most important aspect of this regulation is the updated **Annex II**. Businesses and individuals involved in exporting goods to Iran need to carefully review this annex to ensure they are not dealing with any prohibited items.
* The Annex provides detailed descriptions and HS/CN codes to help identify controlled items.
* The regulation expands the scope of export restrictions to include additional components used in UAV and missile production, reflecting the EU’s concern over Iran’s military support activities.
* The regulation refers to other regulations such as Regulation (EU) 2021/821 and Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, so it is important to check them to understand the definitions and other details.

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/266 of 26 January 2026 fixing for 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas

Here is a description of the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) 2026/266:

This regulation sets the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks in the Mediterranean and Black Seas for the year 2026. It aims to ensure the sustainable management of these fish stocks, taking into account scientific advice, biological and socioeconomic aspects, and international agreements. The regulation establishes catch limits, fishing effort restrictions, and other conservation measures for various species and geographical areas. It also implements recommendations from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM).

The regulation is structured into three titles:

* **Title I (General Provisions):** Defines the scope of the regulation, key terms, and the geographical areas to which it applies.
* **Title II (Fishing Opportunities for Union Fishing Vessels):** This is the core of the regulation, divided into chapters based on the sea basin (Mediterranean Sea, Western Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, Strait of Sicily, Ionian Sea, Levant Sea, and Black Sea). Each chapter specifies fishing opportunities, including catch limits (TACs), quotas, and fishing effort restrictions for specific stocks and areas. It also includes specific measures for certain species, such as European eel, red coral, and common dolphinfish.
* **Title III (Final Provisions):** Contains articles on the regulation’s entry into force and application period.

Compared to previous versions, this regulation continues to implement multiannual management plans and adapt fishing opportunities based on the latest scientific advice from STECF and recommendations from the GFCM. Key changes include:

* **European Eel:** Maintains the six-month closure period for commercial fisheries and a ban on recreational fisheries.
* **Red Coral:** Continues the freeze on fishing effort through a maximum number of fishing authorizations and harvest limits.
* **Common Dolphinfish:** Implements a fleet capacity ceiling, a freeze on the capacity of fish aggregating devices (FADs) per vessel, a catch limit, and a temporal closure, as well as a daily bag limit for recreational fisheries.
* **Demersal Stocks in the Western Mediterranean:** Maintains the fishing effort level at the level set for 2025.
* **Small Pelagic Stocks in the Adriatic Sea:** Establishes catch limits for anchovy and sardines, based on historical catches.
* **Turbot in the Black Sea:** Implements an updated regional total allowable catch (TAC) and a quota allocation scheme.

Some of the most important provisions for the use of this act are:

* **Specific Catch Limits and Effort Restrictions:** Fishermen and national authorities need to be aware of the specific catch limits and effort restrictions for each stock and area, as outlined in the annexes.
* **Compensation Mechanism:** Member States can adopt national legislation to grant additional fishing days to vessels that comply with certain selectivity and conservation measures.
* **Remedial Measures:** Specific measures are in place for stocks with spawning stock biomass below safe biological limits, such as catch limits for European hake and minimum conservation reference size for Norway lobster.
* **Temporal Closures:** The regulation establishes temporal closures for certain species and areas, such as turbot in the Black Sea and blackspot seabream in the Alboran Sea, to protect spawning stocks.
* **Data Recording and Transmission:** Member States must record and transmit fishing effort data to the Commission using specific codes.
* **Recreational Fisheries:** The regulation includes provisions for recreational fisheries, such as a ban on European eel fishing and a daily bag limit for common dolphinfish.
* **Flexibility Clause:** Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 847/96 shall not apply where a Member State uses the year-to-year flexibility provided for in Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/189 of 28 January 2026 amending Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council and Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 as regards the use of shellac (E 904) in food for special medical purposes in tablet and coated tablet forms

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/189 modifies existing regulations concerning the use of shellac (E 904) as a food additive. The key change is the authorization of shellac as a glazing agent specifically for foods for special medical purposes in tablet and coated tablet forms. Additionally, the regulation updates the specifications for shellac (E 904) by removing information related to wax-containing shellac.

The regulation amends Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 by adding an entry for shellac (E 904) in food category 13.2, which covers foods for special medical purposes, allowing its use only in tablet and coated tablet forms. It also amends the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 by revising the definition and description of shellac and setting a limit for wax content.

The most important provision is the authorization of shellac (E 904) as a glazing agent for foods for special medical purposes in tablet and coated tablet forms. This allows manufacturers to use shellac to provide a protective coating that ensures the active ingredients of tablets are appropriately supplied. The updated specifications for shellac, particularly the removal of information on wax-containing shellac and the limit on wax content, are also significant for ensuring the quality and safety of the food additive.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/196 of 28 January 2026 amending Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use of carrageenan (E 407), locust bean gum (E 410), guar gum (E 412), gum arabic (acacia gum) (E 414), xanthan gum (E 415), pectins (E 440) and starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 as regards specifications for locust bean gum (E 410), guar gum (E 412), gum arabic (acacia gum) (E 414), xanthan gum (E 415), pectins (E 440) and starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450)

This regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 concerning the use and specifications of several food additives, including carrageenan (E 407), locust bean gum (E 410), guar gum (E 412), gum arabic (acacia gum) (E 414), xanthan gum (E 415), pectins (E 440), and starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450). It adjusts the conditions of use for these additives in certain food categories, particularly those intended for infants and young children, and updates their specifications to reflect the latest scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The regulation aims to ensure the safety and suitability of these additives in food products, considering the specific needs and vulnerabilities of infants and young children.

The regulation consists of four articles and two annexes. Article 1 amends Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, modifying the conditions of use for the specified food additives in various food categories, especially concerning foods for young children. Article 2 amends the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 231/2012, updating the specifications for locust bean gum, guar gum, gum arabic, xanthan gum, pectins, and starch sodium octenyl succinate, including changes to purity criteria, limits for toxic elements, and microbiological criteria. Article 3 provides transitional arrangements for food additives and foods containing these additives that have been lawfully placed on the market before the application date of this regulation. Article 4 states the entry into force and application dates of the regulation. Annex I details the specific amendments to Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, while Annex II outlines the changes to the specifications in the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Several provisions of this regulation are particularly important. The regulation withdraws the authorization of guar gum (E 412) in infant formulae and foods for special medical purposes intended for infants (food categories 13.1.1, 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2). It also sets new, stricter limits for toxic elements like lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium in the specifications for several additives, especially when used in foods for infants and young children. The regulation introduces microbiological criteria for these additives, ensuring they meet certain standards for food safety. Additionally, the term “soluble” is replaced with “fully dispersible” in the specifications for several hydrocolloids to better reflect their behavior in water. Finally, the regulation includes transitional periods to allow food businesses to adapt to the new rules, minimizing disruption to the market.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 January 2026.PB v Single Resolution Board.Appeal – Civil service – Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – Members of the temporary staff – Decision not to reclassify – Possibility for the administration to supplement before the Courts of the European Union the statement of reasons for the decision not to reclassify – Conditions – Exceptional cases – Principle of correspondence between the administrative complaint and the subsequent action – Action for annulment.Case C-727/23 P.

This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) regarding an appeal by PB against the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The case concerns the SRB’s decision not to reclassify PB at the end of the 2021 reclassification exercise. PB argues that the General Court erred in upholding the SRB’s decision, particularly regarding the statement of reasons for the decision and the principle of correspondence between the administrative complaint and the subsequent action.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:**
* PB’s recruitment and subsequent reclassification within the SRB.
* The SRB’s decision not to reclassify PB in the 2021 exercise.
* PB’s complaint and subsequent action before the General Court.
2. **Legal Context:**
* Relevant articles of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) concerning promotion and reclassification.
* General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) regarding reclassification procedures within the SRB.
3. **General Court Judgment:**
* The General Court dismissed PB’s action against the SRB’s decision.
4. **Appeal to the Court of Justice:**
* PB’s grounds of appeal, including failure to consider comparative merits, breach of the obligation to state reasons, incorrect assessment of responsibilities, procedural defects, infringement of target averages, and manifest error of assessment.
5. **Admissibility of the Appeal:**
* The Court found the appeal admissible, rejecting the SRB’s argument that it was confused and repetitive.
6. **Substance of the Appeal:**
* The Court focused on two main issues:
* Whether the SRB was entitled to supplement the statement of reasons for its decision during the proceedings.
* Whether the General Court infringed the principle of correspondence between the administrative complaint and the action.
7. **Decision:**
* The Court set aside the General Court’s judgment and annulled the SRB’s decision not to reclassify PB.
* The SRB was ordered to bear the costs of both the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* The Court emphasized that the statement of reasons for a decision must generally be communicated to the person concerned at the same time as the decision itself.
* It clarified that while an inadequate statement of reasons can be remedied in exceptional cases, this is only permissible if the principal reasons for the decision were initially communicated clearly.
* The Court found that the SRB’s statement of reasons was insufficient because it did not clearly explain why PB was not reclassified compared to other eligible staff members.
* The Court also held that the General Court erred in rejecting PB’s plea alleging an error of assessment of his merits, as this plea was sufficiently linked to his initial complaint.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are the clarifications regarding the obligation to state reasons for administrative decisions and the principle of correspondence between administrative complaints and subsequent legal actions. Specifically:

* **Clear and Timely Statement of Reasons:** EU institutions must provide clear and specific reasons for decisions affecting staff members, and these reasons should be communicated at the time of the decision.
* **Limited Scope for Supplementing Reasons:** The ability to supplement a statement of reasons during legal proceedings is limited to exceptional cases where the initial reasons were at least partially communicated.
* **Principle of Correspondence:** While legal actions can develop arguments beyond the initial complaint, they must remain closely linked to the original issues raised in the complaint.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 January 2026.Deutsche Bank AG and BHW Bausparkasse AG v European Central Bank.Appeal – Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Single supervisory mechanism – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Specific supervisory tasks conferred on the European Central Bank (ECB) – Article 4 – Setting of prudential requirements – Article 16 – Risk linked to irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) given in favour of deposit guarantee schemes or resolution funds – Deduction in full from the Common Equity Tier 1 capital of the sums paid as collateral for the IPCs – Discretion of the ECB – Judicial review.Case C-556/24 P.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal concerning the European Central Bank’s (ECB) power to impose prudential requirements on credit institutions. The case revolves around the ECB’s decision to require certain banks to deduct the full amount of collateral provided for irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) from their Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital. The core issue is whether the ECB exceeded its supervisory powers by imposing this requirement, and whether the General Court correctly interpreted the relevant EU regulations.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Background:** It outlines the context of the dispute, including the ECB’s supervisory role, the nature of IPCs, and the specific decisions taken by the ECB.
2. **Legal Context:** It summarizes the relevant articles from key EU regulations and directives, including:
* Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR) on prudential requirements for credit institutions.
* Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV) on access to the activity of credit institutions.
* Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (SSM Regulation) conferring specific tasks on the ECB.
* Directive 2014/49/EU on deposit guarantee schemes.
* Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions.
* Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 establishing uniform rules for the Single Resolution Mechanism.
* Commission Implementing Regulation 2021/451 on supervisory reporting.
3. **The Action Before the General Court:** It describes the initial legal challenge at the General Court, the arguments presented by the appellants (Deutsche Bank AG and BHW Bausparkasse AG), and the General Court’s decision to dismiss their action.
4. **The Appeal:** It presents the appellants’ grounds for appeal, which center on the ECB’s alleged overreach of power and misinterpretation of relevant regulations.
5. **The Court’s Reasoning:** The CJEU systematically addresses each ground of appeal, providing detailed interpretations of the relevant legal provisions and assessing whether the General Court erred in its judgment.
6. **Decision:** The CJEU dismisses the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision and affirming the ECB’s power to impose the contested prudential requirements.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are:

* **ECB’s Supervisory Powers (Article 4 and 16 of Regulation No. 1024/2013):** The judgment confirms that the ECB has broad supervisory powers to ensure the safety and soundness of credit institutions. This includes the power to impose additional own funds requirements and other measures to address identified risks.
* **Treatment of Irrevocable Payment Commitments (IPCs):** The judgment clarifies that the ECB can require banks to deduct the full amount of collateral provided for IPCs from their CET1 capital if it determines that the accounting treatment of these commitments leads to an overstatement of capital.
* **Exhaustive Nature of Regulation No. 575/2013:** The judgment rejects the argument that Regulation No. 575/2013 provides an exhaustive list of deductions from CET1 capital, and that the ECB cannot impose additional requirements.
* **Principle of Proportionality:** The judgment confirms that the ECB’s supervisory measures must be proportionate to the risks being addressed.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review of the ECB’s supervisory decisions, emphasizing that the courts should not substitute their assessment for that of the ECB, but should ensure that the decision is not based on materially incorrect facts or a manifest error of assessment.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2026.European Commission v Zippo Manufacturing Co. and Zippo GmbH.Appeal – Commercial policy – Commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 – Measures adopted by the United States of America on imports of certain derivative aluminium and steel products – European Union decision to suspend equivalent trade concessions and other obligations – Additional customs duties on imports of products originating in the United States – Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle of good administration – Right to be heard – Principle of ne ultra petita.Case C-811/23 P.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding an appeal against a General Court decision. The case revolves around Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502, which imposed additional customs duties on certain products originating in the United States in response to measures taken by the U.S. on imports of certain aluminium and steel products. The CJEU’s judgment addresses whether the General Court was correct in annulling the regulation with respect to certain lighters (CN code 96138000) due to a breach of the right to be heard, as enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the principle of good administration.

The structure of the judgment involves the CJEU examining the Commission’s appeal, which is based on two main grounds: (1) that the General Court erred in finding a breach of the right to be heard and (2) that the General Court infringed the principle of *ne ultra petita* (ruling beyond what was requested). The CJEU analyses the scope of the right to be heard under the Charter, particularly in relation to measures of general application versus individual measures. It also considers whether the General Court overstepped its authority by annulling the regulation beyond the specific request of the applicants. Ultimately, the CJEU sets aside the General Court’s judgment and refers the case back to the General Court to rule on the remaining pleas.

The most important provisions of the act are those concerning the right to be heard (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter) and the principle of *ne ultra petita*. The CJEU clarifies that the right to be heard primarily applies to individual measures, not to measures of general application like the trade regulation in question. The judgment emphasizes that the General Court cannot grant an annulment that goes beyond what the applicant requested. These clarifications are crucial for understanding the procedural rights of parties affected by EU legislation and the limits of judicial review.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 2026.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Mutual recognition of confiscation orders – Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA – Article 8(2)(d) – Reason for non-recognition or non-execution – Rights of interested parties – Bona fide third parties – Mortgage creditor – Immovable property constituting the proceeds of the offence – Procedure for recognition and execution of a confiscation order – Judgment mortgage registered before the adoption of that order.Case C-562/24.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 8(2)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA concerning the mutual recognition of confiscation orders within the EU, specifically focusing on the rights of “bona fide third parties.” The case originates from Slovenia and involves a dispute over the recognition and execution of an Italian confiscation order concerning properties linked to criminal activities. The core issue revolves around whether a mortgage creditor, who registered their mortgage before the confiscation order, can be considered a “bona fide third party” whose rights should prevent the execution of the confiscation order.

The judgment addresses whether a Member State can refuse to execute a confiscation order from another Member State due to the rights of a mortgage creditor who registered their mortgage on the property before the confiscation order was issued. The Court clarifies the scope of “bona fide third parties” under Article 8(2)(d) of Framework Decision 2006/783, emphasizing that these parties must have effective remedies to challenge confiscation decisions. It also refers to Directive 2014/42/EU, which deals with the confiscation of proceeds of crime and the protection of bona fide third parties.

The Court ruled that a mortgage creditor can be considered a “bona fide third party” if they were unaware that the mortgage was intended to help the accused avoid confiscation. The executing Member State’s judicial authority may refuse to recognize or execute a confiscation order if it prejudices the rights of such a mortgage creditor. The national court must determine whether the creditor acted in good faith, considering all relevant circumstances.

Urteil des Gerichtshofs (Zehnte Kammer) vom 29. Januar 2026.#Duygu Eliz Erkut gegen Fondazione Teatro alla Scala di Milano.#Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung – Sozialpolitik – Richtlinie 1999/70/EG – EGB-UNICE‑CEEP-Rahmenvereinbarung über befristete Arbeitsverträge – Befristete Arbeitsverträge im Bereich der Stiftungen für Oper und Orchester – Auf der Grundlage aufeinanderfolgender befristeter Verträge eingestellte Arbeitnehmerin – Paragraf 5 – Maßnahmen zur Ahndung von Missbrauch durch aufeinanderfolgende befristete Arbeitsverträge oder ‑verhältnisse – Nationale Regelung, die keine Umwandlung des Arbeitsvertrags zulässt, sondern u. a. den Ersatz des erlittenen Schadens vorsieht.#Rechtssache C-668/24.

This document is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work. The case involves an Italian ballerina, Eliz Erkut Duygu, and her dispute with the Fondazione Teatro alla Scala di Milano (La Scala Theatre Foundation) over the nature of her employment relationship, which was based on a series of fixed-term contracts. The Italian court seeks clarification on whether national regulations that do not allow for the conversion of fixed-term contracts into permanent ones in the specific sector of lyrical and symphonic foundations, but instead offer compensation for damages, are compatible with EU law.

The judgment addresses the interpretation of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC. Clause 4 concerns the principle of non-discrimination, while Clause 5 focuses on measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts. The Italian court is essentially asking whether the Italian regulations, as interpreted by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Court of Cassation), are in line with EU law, specifically regarding the sanctions for the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts.

The CJEU clarifies that Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement does not mandate the transformation of fixed-term contracts into indefinite ones in cases of abuse. However, it emphasizes that national authorities must adopt measures that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law. The Court also notes that applying different rules to a specific economic sector due to its particular characteristics is not inherently prohibited. The CJEU concludes that the Framework Agreement does not preclude national legislation that, in the specific sector of lyrical and symphonic foundations, prohibits the automatic reclassification of a fixed-term contract into an open-ended contract in the event of abusive recourse to the former. However, the EU Court leaves it to the national court to determine whether the measures provided for by national law are an effective sanction for the established abuse.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2026.HF v Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Union Customs Code – Importation of goods – Customs value – Undervaluation – Secondary methods for determining customs value – ‘Lowest acceptable price’ method calculated on the basis of aggregated statistical values established at EU level – Whether permissible.Case C-72/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Community Customs Code and the Union Customs Code concerning the determination of customs value for imported goods, specifically when undervaluation is suspected. The case revolves around the use of a “lowest acceptable price” (LAP) method, calculated from aggregated statistical data at the EU level, to determine customs value.

**1. Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses whether customs authorities can use a “lowest acceptable price” (LAP), derived from EU-wide statistical data, to determine the customs value of imported goods when they suspect undervaluation. It clarifies the conditions under which such statistical values can be used, emphasizing that they cannot be applied arbitrarily or as minimum values, and that importers must have the opportunity to justify declared prices. The judgment also discusses the application of simplification procedures for customs declarations and the designation of persons liable for import VAT.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment interprets several key articles from the Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92), its Implementing Regulation (Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93), the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013), and its Implementing Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/2447). It also references the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (WTO Valuation Agreement) and the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC).

* **Customs Valuation Methods:** The judgment reiterates the hierarchy of methods for determining customs value, prioritizing the transaction value (price actually paid or payable) and allowing for secondary methods only when the transaction value cannot be reliably determined.
* **Use of Statistical Values:** It clarifies that statistical values like LAPs can be used to substantiate doubts about declared values but cannot be the sole basis for determining customs value unless certain conditions are met.
* **”Lowest Acceptable Price” (LAP):** The judgment focuses on the LAP method, which uses EU-wide statistical data to identify potentially undervalued imports. It states that LAP cannot be used as a minimum value or applied arbitrarily. Importers must have the opportunity to justify their declared prices.
* **Simplification Procedures:** The judgment addresses the use of simplification procedures for customs declarations (grouping goods under a single tariff classification) and clarifies that using this procedure does not prevent customs authorities from reassessing the customs value post-clearance.
* **Liability for Import VAT:** The judgment confirms that Member States have the discretion to designate who is liable for import VAT, but the national provisions must be clear and precise.

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

* **Hierarchy of Valuation Methods:** Customs authorities must adhere to the prescribed hierarchy of methods for determining customs value. The transaction value should be used whenever possible.
* **Conditions for Using Statistical Values:** Statistical values like LAP can only be used if the transaction value cannot be reliably determined and if importers are given the opportunity to justify their declared prices.
* **No Arbitrary or Minimum Values:** Customs valuation cannot be based on arbitrary or fictitious values, or on minimum customs values.
* **Clarity and Legal Certainty:** National provisions designating persons liable for import VAT must be clear, precise, and predictable.
* **Reasonable time:** When customs authorities are using statistical data to determine customs value, they should use the data relating to the time closest to when the goods being valued were imported.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2026.Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkassen AG and Others v Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA).Reference for a preliminary ruling – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing – Directive (EU) 2015/849 – Penalties – Article 58 – Liability of legal persons – Article 59 – Attribution to a legal person of an infringement of its obligations committed by natural persons – Conditions – Article 60.Case C-291/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2015/849, which concerns the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing. The case specifically addresses the conditions under which legal persons (like companies) can be held liable for breaches of this directive, particularly concerning penalties. The judgment clarifies the relationship between the liability of legal persons and the actions of natural persons (individuals) acting on their behalf, as well as the applicable limitation periods for bringing proceedings and imposing penalties.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. It begins by outlining the context of the request for a preliminary ruling, which originated from a case in Austria involving Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkassen AG and the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA).
2. It then details the relevant EU law, focusing on Directive 2015/849, particularly Articles 58, 59, and 60, which deal with sanctions and the liability of legal persons. It also references Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) concerning administrative fines.
3. The judgment describes the relevant Austrian law, specifically the Law on Financial Markets Anti-Money Laundering, which transposes the EU directive into Austrian law.
4. It presents the dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian court. The core issue is whether Austrian law, which requires a prior finding of guilt against a natural person before a legal person can be penalized for money laundering breaches, is compatible with EU law.
5. The Court’s consideration addresses two main points: the conditions for the liability of a legal person under Directive 2015/849 and the applicable limitation periods.
6. Finally, the Court provides its ruling, clarifying the interpretation of the relevant articles of Directive 2015/849.

The most important provisions clarified by this judgment are:

* **Liability of Legal Persons**: The CJEU clarifies that the liability of a legal person (e.g., a bank) for breaches of anti-money laundering regulations does not depend on a prior finding of guilt against a specific natural person who acted on its behalf. Member States cannot impose additional requirements that would limit the direct liability of legal persons as obliged entities under the Directive.
* **Attribution of Infringements**: The judgment explains that Articles 58 to 60 of Directive 2015/849 are intended to clarify under which conditions the actions or omissions of natural persons can lead to the liability of a legal person, but they do not require that the natural persons be identified as liable in the decision imposing a penalty on the legal person.
* **Limitation Periods**: The CJEU confirms that a limitation period of three years for bringing proceedings and five years for imposing a penalty, as provided in the Austrian law, is generally compatible with EU law, provided that these periods respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

Arrêt de la Cour (deuxième chambre) du 29 janvier 2026.#Meliá Hotels International, S.A. contre Associação Ius Omnibus.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Actions en dommages et intérêts en droit national pour les infractions aux dispositions du droit de la concurrence des États membres et de l’Union européenne – Directive 2014/104/UE – Article 5, paragraphe 1 – Champ d’application – Action déclarative spéciale pour la production de documents préalable à l’introduction éventuelle d’une action en dommages et intérêts – Appréciation de la plausibilité de la demande de dommages et intérêts.#Affaire C-286/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU, which deals with actions for damages under national law for infringements of competition law. The case originated in Portugal and involves a dispute between Meliá Hotels International and Associação Ius Omnibus regarding access to documents related to a competition law infringement. The Portuguese court sought clarification from the CJEU on how to assess the plausibility, necessity, and proportionality criteria in a special declaratory action for the production of documents.

The judgment clarifies that Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU applies to actions aimed at obtaining access to evidence before initiating a damages claim, provided that such actions are allowed under national law. It also specifies that a Commission decision finding a vertical restriction of competition is not sufficient on its own to establish the plausibility of a damages claim. The judgment further clarifies that demonstrating the plausibility of a damages claim does not require proving that it is more likely than not that the conditions for liability are met; it is sufficient to show that the assumption that these conditions are met is reasonably acceptable.

The key provisions of the act are:
– **Article 5(1):** Specifies the conditions under which national courts can order the production of evidence in damages actions.
– **Article 2(4):** Defines “action for damages.”
– **Article 16 of Regulation 1/2003:** States that national courts cannot make decisions conflicting with those of the Commission on competition matters.
– **Article 17(2) of Directive 2014/104:** Establishes a presumption that cartels cause harm, which can be rebutted.

This judgment is important because it clarifies the scope and application of Directive 2014/104/EU, particularly regarding access to evidence in competition law cases. It confirms that actions for pre-trial discovery are covered by the Directive and sets out the standard for assessing the plausibility of damages claims.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 2026.M.M. v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Allowance granted in the form of an electronic card to support the in-service training of teachers and enhance their professional skills – Grant reserved to teachers employed on a permanent basis – Discrimination against teachers employed on a fixed-term basis – National case-law precluding the retrospective grant of the benefit in question to the teachers concerned where they are no longer employed in the school system – Substitution, under certain conditions, of a right to compensation for the harm suffered.Case C-654/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work (Directive 1999/70/EC) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The case concerns a former fixed-term teacher in Italy who was denied an allowance (in the form of an electronic card) for in-service training, a benefit granted to permanent teachers. The Italian court seeks clarification on whether national case law, which limits the retrospective granting of this benefit to teachers still employed in the school system and imposes specific conditions for compensation for those no longer employed, is compatible with EU law. The CJEU’s judgment clarifies the conditions under which such limitations can be considered compatible with the principle of non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy.

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Introduction:** Sets out the context of the request for a preliminary ruling.
* **Legal Context:** Summarizes the relevant provisions of EU law (Directive 1999/70/EC and the Framework Agreement, Article 47 of the Charter) and Italian law (Law No. 107/2015).
* **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Question Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Details the facts of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the question posed by the Italian court.
* **Consideration of the Question Referred:**
* **Admissibility:** Addresses and dismisses the Italian Government’s arguments that the question is inadmissible.
* **Substance:** Provides the CJEU’s analysis and interpretation of EU law in relation to the question.
* **Costs:** States that the decision on costs is a matter for the referring court.
* **Operative Part:** Formally answers the question referred by the national court.

The judgment clarifies that national case law limiting the retrospective grant of the electronic card and imposing specific conditions for compensation is not necessarily incompatible with EU law. The key condition is that these limitations and conditions must apply equally to both fixed-term and permanent teachers. Additionally, the procedural rules for exercising the right to compensation must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, ensuring that fixed-term teachers have a genuine opportunity to assert their rights.

The most important provision is the operative part (point 70), which states that Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement does not preclude national case-law under certain conditions. These conditions are:

1. All limitations and conditions for retrospective grant of the card and compensation must apply equally to both fixed-term and permanent teachers.
2. The procedural rules governing the exercise of the right to compensation must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

This means that if the Italian court finds that the limitations and conditions apply equally to all teachers (fixed-term and permanent), and that the procedural rules are fair and effective, then the national case law is compatible with EU law. However, if there is discrimination or the procedural rules are unfair, then the national case law is not compatible with EU law.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2026.Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v M. GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Unfair competition – Unfair trading practices – Directive (EU) 2019/633 – Prohibition – Article 3(1)(d) – Payment request not related to the sale of the agricultural and food products of the supplier – Point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) – Power to impose fines – Classification as a ‘single infringement’ of a number of prohibited unfair trading practices giving rise to the imposition of a single fine – Principle ne bis in idem – National legislation providing for a cap on fines.Case C-311/24.

This judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union addresses the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2019/633 concerning unfair trading practices in the agricultural and food supply chain. The case originates from Austria and revolves around a company, M. GmbH, that requested payments from its suppliers, which the Austrian Federal Competition Authority (BWB) considered unrelated to the sale of agricultural and food products, thus violating Austrian law transposing the EU directive. The core issue is whether multiple payment requests to different suppliers, based on a single decision, should be considered a single infringement or multiple infringements, and how this affects the penalties imposed.

The judgment clarifies how national laws should interpret and implement Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 2019/633, which concerns the powers of enforcement authorities to impose penalties for unfair trading practices. The Court emphasizes that the directive sets a minimum standard of protection, allowing Member States to maintain or introduce stricter national rules. It addresses two main points: (1) whether national legislation can classify multiple unfair trading practices as a single infringement, leading to a single fine, and (2) whether a cap on that fine is permissible. The Court finds that classifying multiple practices as a single infringement is not precluded, provided that the penalty remains effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.

The Court rules that Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 2019/633 does not prevent national laws from classifying multiple payment requests as a single infringement, as long as the enforcement authority has the discretion to impose a fine that is effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, considering the nature, duration, recurrence, and severity of the infringement. The judgment also clarifies that the principle of *ne bis in idem* (not to be punished twice for the same offense) does not prevent classifying multiple unfair trading practices as a single infringement. The Court also notes that the concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’, as set out in the Court’s case-law on Article 101 TFEU, is not relevant in the context of Directive 2019/633.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 2026.W v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Asylum policy – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Article 23(1) – Access to the information in the file of an applicant for international protection – Article 46 – Right to an effective remedy – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4, Article 18 and Article 19(2) – Principle of non-refoulement – Second paragraph of Article 47 – Right to a fair trial – Investigation in the applicant’s country of origin – Rejection of an application for international protection and adoption of a return decision – Access of the court of first instance and the applicant to information relating to the manner in which the investigation was conducted in the applicant’s country of origin – Scope of the rights of the defence and of the right to an effective remedy – Connection with the principle of non-refoulement.Case C-431/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of EU directives related to asylum procedures and the rights of asylum seekers. The case revolves around a request for a preliminary ruling from a Dutch court concerning a Pakistani asylum seeker, W, whose application for international protection was rejected in the Netherlands. The core issue is whether an asylum seeker and the reviewing court should have access to information about how the Dutch authorities conducted their investigation in the asylum seeker’s country of origin.

The judgment focuses on the interpretation of Directive 2013/32/EU (the Asylum Procedures Directive) and Directive 2008/115/EU (the Return Directive), in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The court examines whether “information in the applicant’s file” includes details on how that information was gathered, particularly when the investigation involves inquiries in the applicant’s country of origin.

The CJEU concludes that **Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU**, read in conjunction with **Article 46** of that directive and in the light of **Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union**, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action before a national court called upon to rule on the lawfulness of a decision rejecting an application for international protection and that of a return decision taken against the third-country national who lodged that application, information relating to the manner in which an investigation was conducted by the authorities of the host Member State in the country of origin of that third-country national for the purpose of determining the merits of his or her application is covered by the concept of ‘information in the applicant’s file upon the basis of which a decision is or will be made’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is likely to be relevant to the assessment, by that court, of whether the principle of non-refoulement has been complied with. It follows that the applicant for international protection and the court having jurisdiction must be able to access that information by the means provided for in points (a) and (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive.

The court emphasizes the importance of the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning someone to a place where they risk persecution or serious harm. It also highlights the right to an effective remedy and the rights of the defense, including access to relevant information. The judgment acknowledges that access to information may be restricted in certain cases to protect national security or other legitimate interests, but such restrictions must be balanced against the need to ensure a fair and effective review of asylum decisions.

Scheduling of the continuation of the general review hearing in case No 07 K0.2016.672 – ON 7015

This notice from the Official Journal of the European Union announces the continuation of a general review hearing related to bankruptcy proceedings involving Gable Insurance AG, a company based in Vaduz, Liechtenstein. The hearing concerns the claims submitted in the bankruptcy case. The notice specifies the date, time, and location of the continued hearing.

The document is structured as a simple announcement. It identifies the bankrupt company, Gable Insurance AG, and its legal representation. It clearly states that the subject of the hearing is the review of claims submitted in the bankruptcy proceedings. The notice provides the date (February 4, 2026), time (11:15 a.m.), and location (hearing room 5 at the Princely Court of Justice) for the continuation of the hearing. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this notice pertains to a specific continuation of an existing hearing.

The most important provision is the scheduling information for the continued hearing. Claimants and interested parties in the Gable Insurance AG bankruptcy case should take note of the date, time, and location to attend the hearing or ensure their representation is present. This hearing is crucial for the review of submitted claims and will likely impact the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.