Review of the EU legislation for 20/06/2025

Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025/1223
This Directive updates the minimum training requirements for veterinary surgeons across the EU, amending Directive 2005/36/EC. It ensures veterinary training keeps pace with scientific and technical advancements. The updated rules emphasize the “One Health” concept, sustainability, and the integration of digital technologies into veterinary practices. Member States must incorporate these changes into their national laws by April 10, 2027.

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2025/1222
This regulation updates the list of harmonized classifications and labeling for hazardous substances under the CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. These updates, driven by opinions from ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC), are designed to protect human health and the environment by providing clear and consistent information about chemical hazards. The regulation applies from February 1, 2027, but suppliers can voluntarily comply earlier. The Annex lists substances with updated classifications and labeling.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1242
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 concerning African swine fever (ASF). The main change is an update to the restricted zones (I, II, and III) detailed in Annexes I and II. This update reflects recent ASF outbreaks and epidemiological developments in Germany, Italy, Poland, Greece and Croatia. It’s essential for those involved in the movement of live pigs and pork products to consult Annex I to identify affected regions.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1203
This regulation grants Union authorization for the biocidal product family “REPELLENT AGAINST FLEAS, TICKS, AND MOSQUITOES,” held by Agrobiothers Laboratoire. Valid from July 10, 2025, to June 30, 2035, the authorization covers products using margosa extract to repel these pests. The Annex provides detailed information on the product family, including specific instructions for each product type (sprays, foams, and spot-on solutions), focusing on safe usage and risk mitigation.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1197
This regulation restricts access to the EU public procurement market for medical devices originating from China, using the International Procurement Instrument (IPI). It applies to procurement procedures valued at or above EUR 5,000,000 (net of VAT) and excludes tenders from Chinese economic operators for medical devices. This action aims to address what the EU views as unfair trade practices by China in its medical device procurement market, promoting reciprocity in international trade.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1206
This regulation suspends GSP+ tariff preferences for ethanol imports from Pakistan for two years, except for fuel-use ethanol meeting specific technical standards. This action is in response to concerns that increased Pakistani ethanol imports are causing serious disturbances to the EU’s non-fuel ethanol market. Shipments already in transit will still benefit from preferential tariffs if their destination cannot be changed.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1202
This regulation extends the existing anti-dumping duty on certain graphite electrode systems (GES) from China to include artificial graphite in blocks or cylinders also originating in China. The anti-dumping duty is set at 74.9%. This action aims to prevent circumvention of existing duties on GES by targeting artificial graphite used in their production. An exemption is made for one company, JAP INDUSTRIES s.r.o., which was found not to be involved in circumvention practices.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1188
This regulation approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) “Spišské párky”. This means the updated specification, as published in the Official Journal, is now the official standard for this TSG product within the EU.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1233
This regulation amends Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which imposes restrictive measures against individuals and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. This update removes Hajjaj Bin Fahd al Ajmi from the sanctions list, following a decision by the UN Security Council’s Sanctions Committee. Any funds or economic resources previously frozen due to his designation should now be unfrozen.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1196
This regulation cancels the Union authorisation for the biocidal product “Nordkalk Filtra G” at the request of the authorisation holder. It also repeals the previous regulation that granted the authorisation (EU) 2024/2400. There’s a grace period: the product can no longer be made available on the market after 5 January 2026, and existing stocks must not be used after 4 July 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1220
This regulation classifies a mixture of sucrose and gellan gum, used as a stabilizer and thickener in soya-based beverages, under CN code 2106 90 98. This classification ensures uniform application of customs tariffs across the EU. A three-month grace period is allowed for existing Binding Tariff Information (BTI) that doesn’t align with this regulation.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1192
This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067, introducing rules for verifying milestones and targets in Article 10b(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. It harmonizes the verification of climate-neutrality reports, extends existing verification rules to cover these reports, and sets requirements for information sharing and strategic risk analysis. Additionally, it adapts rules for assessing sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions savings criteria for various fuels and specifies the verifier’s role in checking the attribution of alternative aviation fuels.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1221
This regulation classifies a carbonated blackcurrant-flavored alcoholic beverage under CN code 2208 90 69, categorizing it as a spirituous beverage. This classification ensures uniform application of customs tariffs. A three-month grace period is provided for existing binding tariff information that may conflict with this new classification.

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1208
This regulation strengthens the security features of EU identity cards and residence documents. It mandates the ID-1 format, a machine-readable zone (MRZ), and a secure storage medium containing a facial image and two fingerprints. Older, non-compliant documents must be phased out by August 3, 2026 (for those lacking minimum security standards or a functional MRZ) and August 3, 2031 (for all others).

Regulation (EU) 2025/1227
This regulation introduces increased customs duties on specific goods originating from or exported from Russia and Belarus. Goods listed in Annex I (various agricultural and animal products) face an additional 50% duty, while fertilizers in Annex II face a phased increase. A safeguard mechanism could trigger the highest duty level sooner if import volumes are high. The Commission will monitor fertilizer prices and may suspend tariffs from other countries if prices substantially exceed 2024 levels.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1213
This Regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2019/631, introducing a one-off flexibility mechanism for manufacturers in meeting CO2 emission targets for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles during the period 2025-2027. Instead of assessing compliance annually, manufacturers’ performance will be evaluated over the entire three-year period. This means that manufacturers can exceed their annual targets in one year, provided that they compensate for it in the following years, ensuring that the average emissions over the three years comply with the overall target. The regulation also adjusts pooling provisions to align with this new flexibility.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-115/23
This CJEU judgment clarifies the conditions for VAT exemptions on public postal services. It states that services provided by a universal service provider are exempt if they meet basic population needs and are part of the universal service. However, services with individually negotiated contracts catering to specific customer needs are not exempt.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-171/23
This CJEU decision clarifies that while Member States aren’t obligated to automatically recognize another Member State’s refusal of an extradition request, they must duly consider the reasons behind that refusal. This means accounting for any well-founded concerns about fundamental rights violations, like the risk of torture, that led to the prior rejection.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-307/23
This CJEU judgment clarifies the legal remedies available to third-country nationals whose study visa applications are rejected. It states that EU law doesn’t require exceptional appeal processes or court powers to order interim visa measures. However, the appeal process must allow for a swift new decision following any annulment, ensuring effective exercise of rights and adherence to the 90-day decision deadline.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-225/23
This CJEU judgment clarifies aspects of EU trade mark law. It confirms that the ground for invalidity based on a trade mark being registered contrary to Article 7 and the ground for invalidity based on the applicant’s bad faith are autonomous but not mutually exclusive. The court emphasizes that the assessment of bad faith should consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the mark, its origin, the scope of the expired patent, the commercial rationale behind the application, and the chronology of events.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-551/22
This CJEU judgment concerns excise duties. It clarifies that an additional tax on electricity, calculated based on the existing excise duty, can be considered separate if its revenue goes to different authorities and it has different exemption rules. However, it must also have a “specific purpose” beyond general budgeting. If reclaiming the tax from suppliers is too difficult, consumers should be able to claim reimbursement directly from the Member State.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-647/22
The CJEU determined that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the request presented because Directive 98/59/EC does not specifically govern the drawing up and implementation of employment protection plans.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-472/22
The Court confirmed that Member States cannot impose blanket bans on advertising for pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets. While professional rules can regulate the content and form of commercial communications, they cannot amount to a general and absolute prohibition.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-313/23
The CJEU has clarified several aspects of Directive 2015/849, including the definition of a “close associate of a politically exposed person,” information sharing within a group of obliged entities, and customer due diligence measures.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-567/22
The Court clarifies that national case law cannot require a consumer to repay the full nominal loan amount when the agreement is invalidated due to unfair terms, without considering the repayments already made.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-518/23
The CJEU concludes that Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 does not prevent national laws from imposing separate fines for each systematic infringement found during a single investigation, provided that the general principles of EU law, particularly effectiveness and proportionality, are respected.

Partnership Council Decision No 1/2025
This decision clarifies the interpretation of Article 508(2)(d) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK, specifically regarding fisheries. It allows the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to make decisions that provide for multiannual full access to fishing waters for a specified period after June 2026.

Specialised Committee on Fisheries Decision No 1/2025
This decision establishes the arrangements for fishing access between the EU and the UK from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2038. It ensures reciprocal access for vessels of both parties to each other’s waters, specifying the conditions and levels of access for various fish stocks.

Joint Declaration on Energy
This Joint Declaration expresses the shared political understanding between the European Union and the United Kingdom to continuously pursue the objectives outlined in Title VIII (Energy) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Partnership Council Decision No 2/2025
This Partnership Council Decision No 2/2025 addresses the continuation of energy-related cooperation between the EU and the UK under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, extending it until March 31, 2027.

EEA Joint Committee Decision No 197/2024
This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement. The Decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2770 into the EEA Agreement, specifically addressing technical regulations, standards, testing, and certification.

UNCITRAL Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration
This Convention aims to establish a harmonized legal framework for fair and efficient settlement of international investment disputes by promoting transparency in treaty-based investor-State arbitration.

Request for Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court (Valair AG v Amt für Volkswirtschaft)
This is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters of the Principality of Liechtenstein in the case of Valair AG v Amt für Volkswirtschaft.

EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-3/23 (Friends of the Earth Norway)
The Court clarifies the conditions under which economic or social considerations can justify activities that may lead to the deterioration of water bodies under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).

EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-12/23 (Elmatica AS v Confidee AS)
The judgment clarifies how national courts should balance the need for effective legal protection and due examination of claims with the protection of business confidentiality, including trade secrets.

Request for Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court (Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS)
This document is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Court by the Borgarting Court of Appeal (Norway) in a case involving Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS and Others against the Norwegian State.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025/1223 of 10 April 2025 amending Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the minimum training requirements for the profession of veterinary surgeon

This Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025/1223 aims to update the minimum training requirements for veterinary surgeons within the European Union. It amends Directive 2005/36/EC, adapting the training to reflect scientific and technical advancements in the field. The directive ensures that veterinary training aligns with current practices and knowledge, particularly in areas like the One Health concept, sustainability, and digital technologies.

The directive modifies Article 38 of Directive 2005/36/EC, replacing paragraph 3 to specify the knowledge and skills that veterinary training must provide. It also replaces point 5.4.1 of Annex V, detailing the study program for veterinary surgeons. The updated annex includes subjects like physics, chemistry, animal and cell biology, and biomathematics under basic subjects. Specific subjects are divided into basic sciences, clinical sciences, animal production, and food hygiene, with detailed topics listed under each category.

The most important provisions of this directive include the updated knowledge and skills requirements for veterinary surgeons, emphasizing the One Health concept, biosecurity, and the responsible use of veterinary medicinal products. The revised study program ensures that veterinary training covers modern advancements in areas such as digital technologies, animal welfare, and public health. Member States have until April 10, 2027, to implement the necessary laws and regulations to comply with this directive.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1222 of 2 April 2025 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the harmonised classification and labelling of certain substances

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2025/1222 amends Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP Regulation) by updating the list of harmonised classifications and labelling for certain hazardous substances. This update is based on opinions issued by the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) regarding several substances. The regulation aims to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment by providing clear and consistent information about the hazards of chemical substances.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 specifies the entry into force and application dates of the regulation. It will enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and apply from 1 February 2027. However, suppliers have the option to voluntarily comply with the new classifications and labelling requirements from the date of entry into force. The Annex contains amendments to Part 3, Table 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, which lists the harmonised classification and labelling of hazardous substances. The amendments include the insertion of new entries for substances and the replacement of existing entries with updated classifications and labelling.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are the updated classifications and labelling requirements for the listed substances. These changes will directly impact manufacturers, importers, and suppliers of these substances, as they will need to update their labels, safety data sheets, and packaging to comply with the new harmonised classifications.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1242 of 19 June 2025 amending Annexes I and II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 laying down special disease control measures for African swine fever

Okay, I can help you with that. Here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1242:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, which lays down special disease control measures for African swine fever (ASF). The key changes involve updating the restricted zones (I, II, and III) listed in Annexes I and II of the previous regulation, based on recent ASF outbreaks and epidemiological developments in several EU Member States, including Germany, Italy, Poland, Greece and Croatia. The goal is to adapt and strengthen measures to prevent the further spread of this animal disease within the Union.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Article 1:** This article is the core of the amendment. It states that Annexes I and II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 are replaced entirely with the new text as set out in the Annex of this current regulation (2025/1242). This means all previous zones are superseded.
* **Article 2:** Specifies the entry into force, which is the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This ensures the changes are implemented rapidly due to the urgent epidemiological situation.

**Annex I** details the restricted zones I, II and III within specific Member States. These zones are categorized based on the risk level associated with ASF outbreaks. The annex lists specific administrative regions (e.g., Bundesländer, Landkreise, municipalities) within each Member State that fall into these zones. The changes reflect:

* The addition of new areas to restricted zones due to recent outbreaks in wild or kept porcine animals.
* The reclassification of certain areas to higher-risk zones (e.g., from Zone I to Zone II or III) due to increased risk.
* The removal of areas from restricted zones where the epidemiological situation has improved.

**Annex II** establishes areas at Union level as infected zones or restricted zones.

* Part A lists areas established as infected zones following an outbreak of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in a previously disease-free Member State or zone.

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

* **Geographic Scope:** The most critical aspect is the precise geographic definition of the restricted zones within each Member State. Businesses and individuals involved in the movement of live pigs, pork products, or other related activities need to consult Annex I to determine if their operations are affected by the restrictions.
* **Disease Control Measures:** The specific disease control measures that apply within each zone (I, II, or III) are not detailed in this regulation itself. Instead, it refers back to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, which outline the applicable measures. Therefore, operators need to be familiar with those regulations as well.
* **Dynamic Nature:** The regulation acknowledges that the ASF situation is very dynamic. This implies that the restricted zones are subject to change based on future epidemiological developments. It is crucial to stay updated on any further amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594.
* **Impact on Germany:** . The inclusion of an infected zone in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany in Part A of Annex II is a significant development, as it marks a new area affected by ASF in a previously disease-free region. This will trigger specific control measures in that area.
* **Impact on Ukraine:** This act does not directly mention Ukraine.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1203 of 19 June 2025 granting a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family REPELLENT AGAINST FLEAS, TICKS, AND MOSQUITOES in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1203 grants a Union authorisation for the biocidal product family named ‘REPELLENT AGAINST FLEAS, TICKS, AND MOSQUITOES’. The authorisation, held by Agrobiothers Laboratoire, is valid from July 10, 2025, to June 30, 2035, and applies to products intended to repel fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes (Product Type 19). The active substance in these products is margosa extract from cold-pressed oil of kernels of Azadirachta indica, extracted with super-critical carbon dioxide.

The regulation itself is brief, containing only two articles. Article 1 grants the Union Authorisation (number EU-0032868-0000) and specifies the period of validity. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex contains the summary of the biocidal product characteristics. The Annex is structured into three parts: Part I provides administrative information applicable to the entire product family, including details about the authorisation holder, manufacturers, and the composition of the product family. Part II details specific information for each Meta SPC (Specific Product Composition), which includes the composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, and directions for use. Part III lists the trade names, authorisation numbers, and specific compositions of each individual product within each Meta SPC. The product family includes repellent sprays, repellent foams and spot-on solutions.

The most important provisions for users relate to the conditions of use for each Meta SPC. For example, the repellent spray should be applied at a rate of 1.6 g/kg bodyweight, with specific instructions for cats and dogs, and should not be used on animals under 3 months old. The repellent foam is extremely flammable and has specific hazard and precautionary statements. The spot-on solution has different concentrations of the active substance (10% and 20%) depending on the animal’s size and type, with a maximum of 4 applications per year. Users must comply with the instructions for use, risk mitigation measures, and safe disposal instructions outlined for each specific product type.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1197 of 19 June 2025 imposing an International Procurement Instrument measure restricting the access of economic operators and medical devices originating in the People’s Republic of China to the European Union public procurement market for medical devices pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2022/1031 of the European Parliament and of the Council

This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1197 that introduces a measure under the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) to restrict access to the European Union’s public procurement market for medical devices for economic operators and medical devices originating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This regulation aims to address what the EU considers to be unfair trade practices by China in its public procurement market for medical devices.

The regulation is structured as follows:

* It begins with references to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the IPI Regulation (EU) 2022/1031, which provides the legal basis for the measure.
* It outlines the procedure, detailing the IPI investigation initiated by the Commission, consultations with the Chinese government, and the publication of an investigation report.
* It describes the public consultation process and information provided to Member States.
* The core of the regulation explains the determination of the IPI measure, including proportionality, the availability of alternative sources of supply, and the Union’s interest.
* It concludes with the adoption of the regulation, specifying the exclusion of tenders from Chinese economic operators for medical device procurement above a certain threshold.

The main provisions of the act include:

* **Restriction of Access:** Economic operators and medical devices originating from the PRC are restricted from accessing the EU public procurement market for medical devices.
* **Scope:** The measure applies to all public procurement procedures in the Union for medical devices (CPV codes 33100000-1 to 33199000-1) with an estimated value equal to or above EUR 5,000,000 net of VAT.
* **Exclusion of Tenders:** Tenders submitted by economic operators originating in the PRC will be excluded from these procurement procedures.
* **Compliance:** Union contracting authorities and contracting entities, as well as successful tenderers, must comply with the requirements laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1031.
* **Origin Determination:** The origin of economic operators and medical devices must be determined in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1031 and Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (Union Customs Code).

This regulation is a direct response to the perceived barriers faced by EU economic operators and goods in the Chinese public procurement market for medical devices. It marks a significant step in the EU’s trade policy, utilizing the IPI to address imbalances and promote reciprocity in international trade relations.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1206 of 19 June 2025 on the suspension of the GSP+ tariff preferences with regard to imports of ethanol originating in Pakistan

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1206 suspends the GSP+ tariff preferences for imports of ethanol originating in Pakistan for a period of two years. This means that the standard Common Customs Tariff duties will now apply to these imports, with the exception of fuel-use ethanol that meets specific technical standards. The regulation is a response to concerns that increased imports of Pakistani ethanol are causing serious disturbance to the Union’s non-fuel ethanol market.

The regulation is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the legal basis and the procedure followed, including the request from several Member States, the Commission’s assessment, and consultations with stakeholders and the Pakistani government. It then details the Commission’s assessment of the relevant product (ethanol), the existence of a serious disturbance in the Union markets, and the analysis of causation factors. The regulation concludes with the decision to suspend the tariff preferences and specifies the duration and exceptions to this suspension.

The most important provisions of this act are:

* **Suspension of Tariff Preferences:** The core provision is the suspension of preferential tariff treatment for specific types of ethanol (CN codes ex 2207 10 and ex 2207 20) originating in Pakistan, excluding fuel-use ethanol that meets certain technical specifications (TARIC codes 2207 10 00 11 and 2207 20 00 11).
* **Duration of Suspension:** The suspension will be in effect for two years from the date the regulation comes into force.
* **Goods in Transit:** Ethanol shipments already en route to the EU when the regulation takes effect will still benefit from the preferential tariff treatment, provided their destination cannot be changed.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1202 of 19 June 2025 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/558 on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of artificial graphite in blocks or cylinders originating in the People’s Republic of China

This is a Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1202 extending the existing anti-dumping duty on certain graphite electrode systems (GES) originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to imports of artificial graphite in blocks or cylinders also originating in the PRC. The regulation addresses the circumvention of anti-dumping measures by extending the duties to artificial graphite used in the production of GES. It establishes a definitive anti-dumping duty of 74.9% on imports of artificial graphite from China, with an exception for one company, JAP INDUSTRIES s.r.o., which was found not to be involved in circumvention practices.

The regulation consists of 5 articles. It details the extension of anti-dumping duties, specifies the duty rate, and provides an exemption for JAP INDUSTRIES s.r.o. Article 2 discontinues the registration of imports established by the previous regulation. Article 3 states that imports of parts that have been exempted from the extended duty shall be either used in the assembly operations of the exempted party, destroyed or re-exported. Article 4 outlines the procedure for requesting exemptions from the extended duty. This regulation builds upon Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/558, which initially imposed the anti-dumping duty on GES, and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2686, which initiated the investigation into possible circumvention.

The most important provisions of this act are those that extend the anti-dumping duty to artificial graphite imports from China and the conditions under which exemptions can be granted. Companies importing artificial graphite need to be aware of the 74.9% duty, unless they can demonstrate that they are not circumventing the original anti-dumping measures. The regulation also specifies that exempted companies can only use the imported artificial graphite in their own assembly operations, re-export it, or destroy it to prevent potential misuse.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1188 of 18 June 2025 on the approval of a Union amendment to the product specification of the traditional speciality guaranteed Spišské párky (TSG)

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1188 approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG) ‘Spišské párky’. The legal basis for this regulation is Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 on geographical indications, which repealed and replaced Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. The regulation acknowledges that the application for the amendment was published in the Official Journal and that no objections were received.

The structure of the act is very simple. It consists of a preamble that cites the relevant regulations and explains the reasons for the regulation, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally approves the Union amendment to the product specification for ‘Spišské párky’ TSG as published in the Official Journal. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that the regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

The most important provision is Article 1, which approves the specific amendment to the product specification of ‘Spišské párky’. This means that the updated specification, as published in the Official Journal, is now the official standard for this TSG product within the EU.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1233 of 17 June 2025 amending for the 347th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1233 amends Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, which imposes specific restrictive measures against individuals and entities associated with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida. The amendment is a direct consequence of a decision by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council to remove one entry from the list of persons, groups, and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources. Consequently, the EU regulation is updated to reflect this change at the UN level.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward. It consists of a preamble that outlines the reasons for the amendment, followed by two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended according to the Annex of this regulation. Article 2 specifies the date of entry into force. The Annex contains the specific amendment, which involves deleting one entry from the list of designated individuals under the heading ‘Natural persons’. The deleted entry is “Hajjaj Bin Fahd al Ajmi,” along with his aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, and date of designation.

The most important provision of this regulation is the deletion of Hajjaj Bin Fahd al Ajmi from the list of individuals subject to sanctions. This means that any funds or economic resources that were previously frozen due to his association with ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida should now be unfrozen, and he is no longer subject to the restrictive measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1196 of 18 June 2025 cancelling the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product Nordkalk Filtra G in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2400

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1196 cancels the Union authorisation for the single biocidal product ‘Nordkalk Filtra G’ and repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2400 which had granted the authorisation. The cancellation was requested by the authorisation holder, Nordkalk AB, due to commercial considerations related to the discontinuation of the product. The regulation also establishes a period of grace for the making available on the market and the use of existing stocks of ‘Nordkalk Filtra G’.

The structure of the act is straightforward, comprising a preamble outlining the reasons for the cancellation and four articles.

* **Article 1** formally cancels the Union authorisation for ‘Nordkalk Filtra G’, referencing the specific authorisation number.
* **Article 2** repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2400, which originally granted the authorisation.
* **Article 3** sets deadlines for the withdrawal of the product from the market and the cessation of the use of existing stocks.
* **Article 4** specifies the date of entry into force of the regulation.

Compared to the previous regulation (EU) 2024/2400, this new regulation reverses the situation by cancelling the previously granted authorisation.

The most important provisions for practical use are found in Article 3, which stipulates that ‘Nordkalk Filtra G’ can no longer be made available on the market after 5 January 2026, and existing stocks must not be used after 4 July 2026. This provides a grace period for businesses and users to manage their existing inventory of the product.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1220 of 16 June 2025 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1220 addresses the classification of a specific good within the Combined Nomenclature (CN). It aims to ensure the uniform application of customs tariffs across the European Union. The regulation classifies a mixture of sucrose and gellan gum, used as a stabilizer and thickener in soya-based beverages, under a specific CN code.

The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the goods described in column (1) of the annex shall be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2) of the annex. Article 2 allows for a three-month grace period during which Binding Tariff Information (BTI) that does not conform to this regulation can still be invoked. Article 3 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex contains a table specifying the description of the goods, their classification code, and the reasons for that classification.

The most important provision is Article 1 in conjunction with the Annex, which definitively classifies the described mixture of sucrose and gellan gum under CN code 2106 90 98. This classification is based on the product’s composition, intended use, and the rules for interpreting the Combined Nomenclature.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1192 of 18 June 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067 as regards certain aspects on the verification of data and on the accreditation of verifiers

This is a description of the **COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2025/1192 of 18 June 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067 as regards certain aspects on the verification of data and on the accreditation of verifiers.**

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067 to include rules for verifying milestones and targets in Article 10b(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC. It harmonizes the verification of climate-neutrality reports, extends existing verification rules to cover these reports, and sets requirements for information sharing and strategic risk analysis. The regulation also adapts rules for assessing sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions savings criteria for various fuels and specifies the verifier’s role in checking the attribution of alternative aviation fuels. Additionally, it incorporates rules for verifying non-CO2 aviation effects and defines specific competence criteria for verifiers.

The regulation is structured around amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067. It modifies several articles, including Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 43, 43l, 43w, 43x, 44, 58, 59, 60, 69, and 77, and Annex I. Key changes include adding definitions for “non-CO2 aviation effects report,” “climate-neutrality report,” and “climate-neutrality reporting period.” It also introduces new articles such as 17c and 33a, which detail the checking of milestones and targets, and simplified verification for non-CO2 aviation effects reports. The amendments also specify new requirements for verifiers related to climate-neutrality plans, alternative aviation fuels, and non-CO2 aviation effects.

The most important provisions for practical use include:

* **Verification of Climate-Neutrality Reports:** The regulation introduces detailed rules for verifying climate-neutrality reports, including assessing the completeness and compliance of the reports, checking opportunities for improvement, and ensuring the accuracy of data. This is crucial for operators aiming to demonstrate the achievement of milestones and targets related to climate neutrality.
* **Verification of Non-CO2 Aviation Effects:** The regulation incorporates harmonized rules for the verification of non-CO2 aviation effects, including specific competence criteria for verifiers and the use of automated systems like NEATS. This is significant for aircraft operators needing to comply with new monitoring and reporting requirements for non-CO2 aviation effects.
* **Materiality Levels:** The regulation establishes uniform materiality levels for verifying non-CO2 aviation effects reports and climate-neutrality reports. This helps verifiers determine whether misstatements, non-conformities, or non-compliance issues are material, ensuring consistent application of verification standards.
* **Alternative Aviation Fuels:** The regulation specifies the verifier’s role in checking the correct attribution of alternative aviation fuels and eligible aviation fuels to flights. This is important for ensuring that the use of these fuels is accurately accounted for in emissions reporting.
* **Simplified Verification:** The regulation introduces simplified verification processes for certain aircraft operators and regulated entities under specific conditions, reducing administrative burden while maintaining the quality of verification.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1221 of 16 June 2025 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1221 concerns the classification of a specific type of alcoholic beverage within the Combined Nomenclature (CN). The regulation aims to ensure the uniform application of customs tariffs by classifying a carbonated blackcurrant-flavored alcoholic beverage under a specific CN code. It clarifies why this product should be classified as a spirituous beverage rather than a fermented one. The regulation also addresses the validity of previously issued binding tariff information that may conflict with this new classification.

The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the goods described in column (1) of the Annex shall be classified under the CN code indicated in column (2) of the Annex. Article 2 allows for a three-month grace period during which binding tariff information that does not conform to this regulation can still be invoked. Article 3 states that the regulation will come into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides a detailed description of the alcoholic beverage, its classification code (2208 90 69), and the reasons for this classification, emphasizing that it is considered a spirituous beverage due to the lack of characteristic taste and smell of a fermented fruit beverage.

The most important provision is the classification of the described carbonated blackcurrant-flavored alcoholic beverage under CN code 2208 90 69. This classification determines the applicable customs duties and other trade-related measures for this specific product within the EU. Additionally, the three-month grace period for existing binding tariff information is crucial for businesses to adjust to the new classification without immediate disruption.

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1208 of 12 June 2025 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement (Text with EEA relevance)

This Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1208 aims to bolster the security features and standards of identity cards issued to Union citizens and residence documents issued to both Union citizens and their family members when they are exercising their right to free movement within the EU. The regulation mandates specific security features, including biometric data, to reduce the risk of fraud and forgery, thereby enhancing the safety and security of the people of Europe. It also seeks to facilitate the free movement of persons within the Union by ensuring that identity and residence documents are more reliable and easier to verify.

The regulation is structured into five chapters, covering the subject matter, scope, and definitions; national identity cards; residence documents for Union citizens; residence cards for family members who are not nationals of a Member State; and common provisions. Key provisions include mandating the ID-1 format for identity cards with a machine-readable zone (MRZ), incorporating a highly secure storage medium containing a facial image and two fingerprints, and specifying minimum information requirements for residence documents issued to Union citizens. The regulation also sets validity periods for identity cards and deadlines for phasing out older, less secure documents. Compared to previous regulations, this act introduces more stringent security standards, particularly the inclusion of biometric data, and aims for greater uniformity in the format and features of identity and residence documents across Member States.

Several provisions are particularly important for practical use. The requirement for identity cards to include a facial image and two fingerprints stored in a highly secure medium will significantly enhance identity verification processes. The regulation also specifies that children under certain ages and individuals for whom fingerprinting is physically impossible are exempt from the fingerprint requirement. The phasing-out schedule for non-compliant documents is also crucial, with identity cards not meeting the minimum security standards or lacking a functional MRZ becoming invalid by August 3, 2026, and all other non-compliant identity cards by August 3, 2031. These deadlines ensure a transition period for Member States to issue new, compliant documents.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1227 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 on the modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus

Here’s a breakdown of Regulation (EU) 2025/1227:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation introduces increased customs duties on specific goods originating from or exported from Russia and Belarus. The goal is to reduce the EU’s economic dependence on these countries, safeguard the EU market, and protect food security in light of the war in Ukraine and broader concerns about international law. The regulation targets both agricultural products and fertilizers, applying different tariff increases and monitoring mechanisms to each category.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Article 1:** This is the core of the regulation, outlining the new customs duties.
* **Annex I Goods:** Goods listed here (various agricultural products, animal products, etc.) will face an additional 50% *ad valorem* customs duty on top of existing tariffs. These goods also lose eligibility for lower tariff rate quotas.
* **Annex II Goods:** These are specific nitrogenous and compound fertilizers. Instead of an immediate 50% increase, these goods will be subject to a phased increase in duties, combining an *ad valorem* percentage with a fixed amount per tonne, escalating annually from July 2025 to July 2028.
* **Safeguard Mechanism:** Article 1(3) introduces a mechanism that, if cumulative import volumes of Annex II goods reach certain thresholds before 2028, the Commission *must* immediately impose the highest duty level specified for 2028.
* **Monitoring:** Article 1(4) allows the Commission to implement measures for monitoring import volumes.
* **Article 2:** Mandates the Commission to monitor the prices of Annex II goods within the EU for four years. If prices substantially exceed 2024 levels, the Commission must assess the situation and take action, potentially including suspending tariffs on these goods from countries *other* than Russia or Belarus.
* **Article 3:** Establishes the Customs Code Committee to assist the Commission in implementing the regulation.
* **Article 4:** Specifies the entry into force and application dates.

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

* **** The key element is the *immediate* increase in customs duties for goods listed in Annex I from 20 July 2025. Businesses importing these goods from Russia or Belarus need to factor in the additional 50% tariff.
* For fertilizers (Annex II), the phased increase provides a transition period, but the safeguard mechanism in Article 1(3) means businesses need to be aware that the highest tariff level could be triggered sooner if import volumes are high.
* The Commission’s monitoring of fertilizer prices (Article 2) and its power to take remedial action, including tariff suspensions, could significantly impact the market. Businesses should closely watch for any such interventions.
* **** The regulation explicitly targets goods “originating in or exported, directly or indirectly, from the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus.” This suggests a broad interpretation to prevent circumvention, so businesses need to be careful about supply chains and potential transshipment.
* **** For Ukrainian businesses it means that they will be able to increase export of goods listed in Annex I and Annex II to EU, because Russian and Belorussian goods will be uncompetitive.

Regulation (EU) 2025/1214 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 to include an additional flexibility as regards the calculation of manufacturers’ compliance with CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles for the calendar years 2025 to 2027 (Text with EEA relevance)

This Regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2019/631, introducing a one-off flexibility mechanism for manufacturers in meeting CO2 emission targets for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles during the period 2025-2027. Instead of assessing compliance annually, manufacturers’ performance will be evaluated over the entire three-year period. This means that manufacturers can exceed their annual targets in one year, provided that they compensate for it in the following years, ensuring that the average emissions over the three years comply with the overall target. The regulation also adjusts pooling provisions to align with this new flexibility.

The Regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 amends Regulation (EU) 2019/631 by inserting a new paragraph in Article 4, adding a subparagraph to Article 6(2), and adding a subparagraph to Article 8(1). These amendments introduce the flexibility mechanism for calculating compliance with CO2 emission targets over the period 2025-2027, adjust the pooling provisions to align with this flexibility, and specify how excess emission premiums will be imposed based on the average emissions over the three-year period. Article 2 states that the Regulation enters into force on the twentieth 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 most important provision is the introduction of a three-year averaging period for assessing manufacturers’ compliance with CO2 emission targets. This allows manufacturers greater flexibility in managing their emissions performance, as they can offset higher emissions in one year with lower emissions in another, as long as the average over the three years meets the target. The adjustment to the pooling provisions, allowing agreements for 2025 or 2026 to be entered into until the end of 2027, is also significant as it provides manufacturers with more time to form strategic partnerships to meet their targets.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.Direktor na Direktsia „Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika“ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite v „Bulgarian posts“ EAD.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest – Article 132 – Public postal services – Directive 97/67/EC – Article 12 – Universal postal service provider – Concepts of ‘public postal service’ and ‘public interest service’.Case C-785/23.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of VAT exemptions for public postal services. The case revolves around a dispute in Bulgaria concerning whether certain postal services provided by “Bulgarian posts” EAD should be exempt from VAT. The Bulgarian tax authority argued that these services, provided under individual contracts with specific conditions, did not qualify for the VAT exemption.

The judgment clarifies the conditions under which postal services provided by a universal service provider can be considered exempt from VAT under EU law. It emphasizes that the exemption applies to services intended to meet the basic needs of the population and form part of the universal postal service. The Court rules that services provided under individually negotiated contracts that cater to the special needs of users and are not offered to all users under comparable conditions are not exempt from VAT.

The key takeaway is that the VAT exemption for public postal services does not apply to services with individually negotiated terms that cater to specific customer needs, distinguishing them from the standard universal service. This includes services with specific collection/delivery arrangements or prices not generally available.

Arrêt de la Cour (troisième chambre) du 19 juin 2025.#Ministère public contre KN.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Procédure préjudicielle d’urgence – Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice – Article 67, paragraphe 3, et article 82, paragraphe 1, TFUE – Coopération judiciaire en matière pénale – Demande d’extradition émanant d’un pays tiers – Citoyen de l’Union – Articles 18 et 21 TFUE – Décision antérieure prise par un autre État membre de refuser l’extradition en raison d’un risque sérieux d’atteinte aux droits fondamentaux – Article 19, paragraphe 2, de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne – Droit de la personne réclamée de ne pas être extradée vers un État où il existe un risque sérieux qu’elle soit soumise à la torture ou à des traitements inhumains ou dégradants – Article 47, deuxième alinéa, de la charte des droits fondamentaux – Droit à un procès équitable – Confiance mutuelle – Obligation de prendre en compte les motifs ayant fondé la décision antérieure de refus d’extrader – Absence d’obligation de reconnaissance mutuelle de cette décision.#Affaire C-219/25 PPU.

This Court decision concerns the interpretation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding extradition requests from third countries. It clarifies the extent to which a Member State is obligated to refuse an extradition request when another Member State has already rejected the same request due to concerns about fundamental rights violations. The decision emphasizes the importance of respecting fundamental rights while also recognizing the competence of Member States in extradition matters in the absence of a specific EU agreement.

The structure of the judgment includes an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling, followed by a review of the relevant legal framework, including the European Convention on Extradition, and the TFUE provisions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It addresses the interpretation of Articles 18 and 21 TFUE regarding non-discrimination and freedom of movement, and their interplay with fundamental rights under the Charter. The Court considers whether Articles 67(3) and 82(1) TFUE, combined with Articles 19 and 47 of the Charter, require a Member State to refuse an extradition request when another Member State has already refused the same request due to risks of torture, inhuman treatment, or denial of a fair trial.

The most important provision is that while Member States are not obligated to automatically recognize and enforce another Member State’s decision to refuse an extradition request, the principle of mutual trust requires them to duly consider the reasons behind the prior refusal. This means that when assessing an extradition request, a Member State must take into account any well-founded concerns about potential violations of fundamental rights, such as the risk of torture or denial of a fair trial, that led another Member State to reject the same extradition request.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone de Belgique and Others v État belge, représenté par la Secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Immigration policy – Directive (EU) 2016/801 – Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for study purposes – Article 34(5) – Appeal against a decision rejecting an application for admission to the territory of a Member State for study purposes – Fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.Case C-299/23.

This judgment addresses the legal remedies available to third-country nationals whose applications for study visas have been rejected by a Member State. The case originates from Belgium, where concerns were raised about the effectiveness of legal challenges against visa rejections for students. The referring court seeks clarification on whether EU law requires specific types of appeals or judicial powers to ensure the right to education and effective remedy for these students.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 34(5) of Directive 2016/801, concerning the rights of third-country nationals applying to study in a Member State, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the right to an effective judicial remedy. It examines whether EU law mandates Member States to provide an exceptional, urgent appeal process, grant courts the power to order interim measures (like instructing authorities to issue a visa), or allow courts to substitute their judgment for that of the administrative authority.

The Court of Justice rules that EU law does not require Member States to establish an exceptional appeal process with urgent procedures or grant courts the power to order interim measures or substitute their assessment for that of the administrative authority. However, the judgment emphasizes that the appeal process must allow for a new decision to be made quickly following an annulment, ensuring that diligent third-country nationals can effectively exercise their rights under the Directive. The Court also notes that Member States must adhere to the 90-day deadline for visa decisions outlined in Directive 2016/801 to ensure the effectiveness of these rights.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2025.CeramTec GmbH v Coorstek Bioceramics LLC.Reference for a preliminary ruling – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Article 52(1)(a) and (b) – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Bad faith of the applicant – Autonomy and coexistence of the absolute grounds for invalidity – Criteria relevant to determining whether an applicant is acting in bad faith when filing an application for a trade mark – Matters arising after that application is filed.Case C-17/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (specifically, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009). The case concerns a dispute between CeramTec GmbH and Coorstek Bioceramics LLC over the validity of three EU trade marks owned by CeramTec. Coorstek challenged the validity of these marks, arguing that CeramTec acted in bad faith when filing the applications. The French Court of Cassation referred questions to the CJEU regarding the relationship between different grounds for invalidating a trade mark, particularly focusing on signs that are necessary to obtain a technical result and the concept of bad faith.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses three key questions referred by the French Court of Cassation:

1. **Autonomy and Coexistence of Grounds for Invalidity:** The CJEU clarifies that the ground for invalidity based on a trade mark being registered contrary to Article 7 (which includes signs consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result) and the ground for invalidity based on the applicant’s bad faith are autonomous but not mutually exclusive. This means that a trade mark can be invalidated for bad faith regardless of whether it also violates Article 7, and vice versa.
2. **Assessment of Bad Faith:** The Court states that bad faith can be substantiated based on the applicant’s opinion regarding the suitability of a sign for expressing a technical solution previously protected by a patent, even if the sign does not actually consist of the shape of goods necessary to achieve that technical result. The court emphasizes that the assessment of bad faith should consider all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the mark, its origin, the scope of the expired patent, the commercial rationale behind the application, and the chronology of events.
3. **Timing of Bad Faith Assessment:** The CJEU confirms that bad faith must be assessed at the time of filing the application for registration. Circumstances arising after the filing date cannot be used to determine whether the applicant acted in bad faith.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* The judgment clarifies that “bad faith” in trade mark law implies a dishonest intention, such as undermining the interests of third parties or obtaining an exclusive right for purposes beyond the legitimate functions of a trade mark.
* It provides guidance on the factors to consider when assessing bad faith, including the applicant’s intent to prolong a monopoly on a technical solution previously protected by a patent.
* The judgment confirms that the relevant time for assessing bad faith is the moment the trade mark application was filed, meaning later events generally cannot retroactively establish bad faith.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2025.Hera Comm SpA v Falconeri Srl.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 1(2) – Other indirect taxes on excise goods – Electricity – National legislation establishing a tax additional to the excise duty on electricity – No specific purposes – Additional tax for the benefit of regional and local authorities considered by the national courts to be contrary to Directive 2008/118 – Recovery by the final consumer from the supplier of the tax paid but not due.Case C-645/23.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC concerning excise duties. The case revolves around a dispute in Italy concerning an additional tax on electricity, levied on top of the standard excise duty. The core issue is whether this additional tax, which wasn’t earmarked for a specific purpose as required by the Directive, was legal and whether consumers can reclaim it from suppliers.

The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by an Italian court. First, the CJEU clarifies whether an additional tax on a product, like electricity, that is calculated as a fraction or multiple of the existing excise duty, should be considered a separate tax under Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118. Second, it addresses whether a private individual can directly rely on Article 1(2) of the Directive to challenge the legality of this additional tax and reclaim payments from the electricity supplier.

The CJEU concludes that the additional tax can be considered separate from the excise duty if its revenue is allocated to different public authorities, and it doesn’t follow the same exemption rules as the excise duty. However, for it to be legal under EU law, it must pursue a “specific purpose” distinct from general budgetary goals. The Court also clarifies that while individuals can’t directly use the Directive to invalidate national law in disputes with private entities, EU law requires that if reclaiming the tax from the supplier is impossible or too difficult, the consumer should be able to claim reimbursement directly from the Member State. This judgment reinforces the importance of specific purpose when levying additional indirect taxes on goods already subject to excise duties and clarifies the rights of consumers when such taxes are found to be non-compliant with EU law.

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.Société Nouvelle de l’Hôtel Plaza SAS v YG and Pôle emploi.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Article 1(1), first subparagraph, (a) – Concept of ‘workers normally employed’ – Workers supplied by an external undertaking under a contract for the provision of services – Method of calculating the number of those workers in the establishment – No specific obligation imposed by that directive in respect of a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings – Inapplicability of that directive – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court.Case C-419/24.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC. The case originates from a dispute in France between Société Nouvelle de l’Hôtel Plaza SAS and one of its employees, YG, regarding the validity of YG’s redundancy. The core issue is whether employees provided by an external company should be included when calculating the number of employees for determining the applicability of national rules regarding employment protection plans in cases of collective redundancies.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the subject matter and the context of the request for a preliminary ruling.
2. **Legal Context:** Details the relevant articles of Directive 98/59/EC and the pertinent articles of French Labour Code.
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Question Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Describes the factual background of the case, the arguments presented by the parties, and the question posed by the French Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) to the CJEU.
4. **The Jurisdiction of the Court:** This section is crucial as it determines whether the CJEU has the authority to answer the question posed by the national court. The Court examines whether Directive 98/59/EC imposes a specific obligation regarding the drawing up and implementation of employment protection plans.
5. **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs associated with the proceedings.
6. **Ruling:** The CJEU concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling.

**Key Provisions and Changes:**

* The judgment focuses on Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC, which defines “collective redundancies” and sets thresholds for when the directive applies based on the number of workers normally employed.
* It also examines relevant articles of the French Labour Code concerning the calculation of staff numbers and the requirement to implement an employment protection plan in undertakings with at least 50 employees when the projected redundancies concern at least 10 employees within a 30-day period.
* The Court emphasizes that Directive 98/59/EC provides only partial harmonization of the rules for the protection of workers in the event of collective redundancies, mainly focusing on the procedure to be followed.
* The judgment clarifies that the directive does not impose a specific obligation to draw up and implement an employment protection plan like the one under French law.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

The most important aspect of this judgment is the CJEU’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the question presented. This is because:

* Directive 98/59/EC does not specifically govern the drawing up and implementation of employment protection plans.
* The threshold of “at least 50 employees” in the French Labour Code, which triggers the obligation to create an employment protection plan, does not correspond to any of the thresholds laid down in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC.
* The Court reiterates that Member States have the right to introduce laws that are more favorable to workers, as per Article 5 of Directive 98/59/EC.

In essence, the CJEU found that the French legislation concerning employment protection plans goes beyond the requirements of Directive 98/59/EC, and therefore, the interpretation of the directive is not necessary to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.European Commission v Republic of Poland.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Directive 2000/31/EC – Electronic commerce – Article 8(1) – Commercial communications service provided by a member of a regulated profession – National legislation prohibiting advertising for pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets as well as for the activities thereof – Restriction – Whether justified – Protection of public health.Case C-200/24.

This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding a failure by the Republic of Poland to fulfill its obligations under EU law. The European Commission brought the action against Poland for maintaining a national law that prohibits advertising for pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets, arguing that this restriction violates the EU’s Directive on electronic commerce and the fundamental freedoms of establishment and to provide services. The Court agreed with the Commission, finding that Poland’s blanket ban on advertising was incompatible with EU law.

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **I. Legal Context:** This section outlines the relevant EU laws (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Directives 98/34, 2015/1535, 2000/31, 2001/83, and 2006/123) and the Polish law (Law on Medicines, as amended) at the heart of the dispute.
* **II. Pre-litigation Procedure:** This section details the exchange between the Commission and Poland before the case was brought to court, including the Commission’s initial concerns and Poland’s responses.
* **III. The Action:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses the Commission’s complaints.
* **A. The first complaint: infringement of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/31:** The Court finds that the Polish law imposes a general and absolute prohibition on online advertising for pharmacies, which is contrary to Article 8(1) of the Directive 2000/31.
* **B. The second and third complaints, alleging infringement of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU:** The Court finds that the Polish law restricts the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
* **Costs:** The Court orders Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of the act are:

* **Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/31:** This article ensures that members of regulated professions can use commercial communications as part of information society services, subject to professional rules. The Court emphasizes that this provision aims to enable professionals to promote their activities online and that professional rules cannot impose a general and absolute prohibition on online advertising.
* **Articles 49 and 56 TFEU:** These articles guarantee the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. The Court reiterates that any national measure that prohibits, impedes, or makes less attractive the exercise of these freedoms is considered a restriction.

The key change brought by this judgment is the confirmation that Member States cannot impose blanket bans on advertising for pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets. While professional rules can regulate the content and form of commercial communications, they cannot amount to a general and absolute prohibition.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.SIA „Laimz” v Izložu un azartspēļu uzraudzības inspekcija.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 – Point 11(a) of Article 3 – Close associate of a politically exposed person – Definition – Article 45(1) and (8) – Obliged entities that are part of a group – Information sharing within the group – Application of decisions taken by another obliged entity that is part of that group – Article 14(1) and (8) – Ongoing monitoring of customers by obliged entities – Article 11(d) – Enhanced customer due diligence measures for providers of gambling services.Case C-509/23.

This document 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 originated from a request for a preliminary ruling by a Latvian court in a dispute between a gambling service provider, ‘Laimz’ SIA, and the Latvian Gambling Supervision Inspectorate. The judgment clarifies several aspects of the Directive, including the definition of a “close associate of a politically exposed person,” information sharing within a group of obliged entities, and customer due diligence measures.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. **Introduction:** It identifies the Directive and the specific articles under scrutiny (Article 2(1), points 9, 11(a), 12 and 15 of Article 3, Article 8(2), Article 11(d), Article 14(5) and Article 45(1) and (8)). It also describes the context of the request, which is a dispute over a financial penalty imposed on ‘Laimz’ SIA for violating national provisions against money laundering and terrorist financing.
2. **Legal Context:** It outlines the relevant articles of Directive 2015/849 and the corresponding Latvian law transposing the Directive. This section provides the legal framework for the Court’s analysis.
3. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** It details the factual background of the case, including the business activities of ‘Laimz’ SIA, its relationship with ‘Optibet’ SIA within the Enlabs AB group, and the specific violations alleged by the Gambling Supervision Inspectorate. It also presents the questions posed by the Latvian court to the CJEU for clarification.
4. **Consideration of the Questions Referred:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court provides its interpretation of the relevant articles of the Directive. It addresses each question in turn, considering the wording, context, and objectives of the Directive.
5. **Costs:** It states that the decision on costs rests with the referring court.

The main provisions clarified by the judgment are:

* **Definition of “Close Associate of a Politically Exposed Person (PEP)”:** The Court clarifies that simply being a member of the same association as a PEP is not sufficient to automatically classify someone as a close associate. However, it is a relevant factor to consider in the overall assessment.
* **Information Sharing within a Group:** Member States must allow obliged entities within the same group to share information. However, this does not absolve each entity of its responsibility to conduct its own customer due diligence.
* **Application of Decisions within a Group:** An obliged entity cannot automatically apply a decision made by senior management in another entity within the same group without conducting its own risk assessment and determining appropriate due diligence measures.
* **Customer Due Diligence for Existing Customers:** Obliged entities are not required to apply due diligence measures to existing customers if there are no changes in circumstances and the deadlines for implementing new measures have not passed. However, this is conditional on the entity conducting continuous monitoring as required by the Directive.
* **Customer Due Diligence Threshold for Gambling Services:** The obligation to apply customer due diligence measures for gambling services applies each time a transaction reaches EUR 2,000 or more, regardless of the time elapsed since the last transaction.

The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning information sharing within a group and the definition of “close associate of a PEP”. The judgment emphasizes that while information sharing is encouraged, each obliged entity must still conduct its own risk assessment and due diligence. The clarification on the definition of “close associate” provides guidance on how to assess relationships with PEPs in a proportionate and evidence-based manner.

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.PU and Others v mBank S.A. and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Article 7(1) – Mortgage loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency, containing unfair terms – Effects of a finding that a term is unfair – Nullity of that agreement – Repayment by the consumer of the amount of the loan obtained under a void agreement irrespective of repayments made – Deterrent effect of the prohibition on unfair terms – Acceptance by the consumer of the claim for repayment – Obligation on the national court to make the judgment against the defendant immediately enforceable.Case C-396/24.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (93/13/EEC). The case originates from Poland and concerns mortgage loan agreements indexed to a foreign currency that contain unfair terms. The judgment clarifies the effects of finding a term unfair, particularly concerning the repayment of the loan amount by the consumer when the agreement is rendered null and void.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: It starts with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling, followed by a summary of the legal context, including relevant articles from Directive 93/13/EEC and Polish law (Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure). It then details the disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred to the CJEU by the Polish court. The judgment proceeds to address the questions, providing an analysis and interpretation of EU law, and concludes with the Court’s ruling and a statement on costs. The judgment clarifies how national courts should handle situations where unfair terms lead to the invalidity of loan agreements, emphasizing the need to protect consumers from adverse consequences.

The most important provisions of the act are the interpretations of Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13. The Court clarifies that national case law cannot require a consumer to repay the full nominal loan amount when the agreement is invalidated due to unfair terms, without considering the repayments already made. Additionally, the Court rules against national legislation that mandates immediate enforceability of a judgment against the consumer if they accept the seller’s claim, without allowing the national court to take measures to protect the consumer from particularly unfavorable consequences. These interpretations aim to ensure that the deterrent effect of the prohibition of unfair terms is maintained and that consumers are adequately protected.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2025.M v Lietuvos bankas.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing – Directive (EU) 2015/849 – Article 59 – Concept of ‘systematic infringement’ – Penalties – National legislation or national practice allowing a separate fine to be imposed in respect of each infringement established in the course of one and the same investigation – Compatibility with EU law – Minimum harmonisation – Observance of the general principles of EU law – Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions – Principle ne bis in idem.Case C-671/23.

This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Article 59 of Directive (EU) 2015/849, which concerns the prevention of using the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing. The case originates from Lithuania and involves a dispute between an electronic money institution (M) and the Bank of Lithuania concerning fines imposed on M for multiple infringements of national anti-money laundering legislation. The Lithuanian court seeks clarification on whether EU law allows national legislation to impose separate fines for each infringement established during a single investigation.

The judgment addresses whether Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 precludes national legislation that allows for separate fines for each “systematic infringement” of anti-money laundering requirements, even if these infringements are discovered during a single investigation. The Court clarifies that the Directive provides minimum harmonization, allowing Member States to implement stricter provisions. It states that the Directive does not define “systematic infringement” and does not prevent Member States from classifying each infringement as separate, leading to separate fines.

The CJEU concludes that Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 does not prevent national laws from imposing separate fines for each systematic infringement found during a single investigation, provided that the general principles of EU law, particularly effectiveness and proportionality, are respected. The national court must ensure that the penalties are effective, dissuasive, and proportionate to the infringements’ severity. The principle of *ne bis in idem* (not being tried twice for the same offense) should also be considered, although it does not appear to be violated in this specific case.

Decision No 1/2025 of the Partnership Council established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 18 June 2025 issuing an interpretation of Article 508(2)(d) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part [2025/1229]

This decision clarifies the interpretation of Article 508(2)(d) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK, specifically regarding fisheries. It allows the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to make decisions that provide for multiannual full access to fishing waters for a specified period after June 2026. This access is considered the agreed outcome of annual consultations under Article 500 of the Agreement, even if provisional TACs (Total Allowable Catches) are set. The decision aims to ensure continued cooperation on sustainable fisheries management between the EU and the UK.

The structure of the decision is straightforward. It begins with the Partnership Council’s citation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its relevant articles. It then lays out the reasons for the decision, emphasizing the need for multiannual access to fishing waters after the initial adjustment period. The core of the decision is contained in Articles 1 and 2. Article 1 provides the interpretation of Article 508(2)(d), and Article 2 states the decision’s entry into force. There are no direct changes compared to previous versions since this is an interpretative decision.

The most important provision is Article 1, which clarifies that “cooperation on sustainable fisheries management” includes the power to grant multiannual full access to fishing waters. This interpretation allows the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to ensure stable and predictable fishing arrangements beyond the initial adjustment period, treating such arrangements as the outcome of annual consultations. This is particularly relevant for fisheries management and the fishing industries in both the EU and the UK, as it provides a framework for long-term planning and resource allocation.

Decision No 1/2025 of the Specialised Committee on Fisheries established by Article 8(1)(q) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 19 June 2025 as regards the arrangements on the level and conditions of access granted by each Party to vessels of the other Party to fish in its waters from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2038 [2025/1231]

This decision, adopted by the Specialised Committee on Fisheries, establishes the arrangements for fishing access between the EU and the UK from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2038. It ensures reciprocal access for vessels of both parties to each other’s waters, specifying the conditions and levels of access for various fish stocks. This decision aims to provide stability and predictability for fishing activities during this period, in accordance with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

The decision consists of four articles. Article 1 defines the scope of the decision, linking it to the access conditions outlined in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Article 2 details the specific access arrangements, including full access to certain fish stocks and non-quota stocks, provided that Total Allowable Catches (TACs) have been agreed upon. It also addresses situations where provisional TACs are set. Article 3 allows for the incorporation of these arrangements into the annual fisheries consultations’ records for transparency. Article 4 specifies the entry into force and duration of the decision, which is set to expire on June 30, 2038, unless extended.

The most important provisions of this decision are in Article 2, which grants full access to fish stocks listed in Annex 35 and tables A, B, and F of Annex 36 of the Agreement, as well as non-quota stocks, within specific Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and coastal waters. This access is contingent on agreed TACs or provisional TACs. Furthermore, the decision explicitly states that it does not involve financial commitments or quota transfers between the parties, clarifying the financial aspects of the agreement.

Joint Declaration 1/2025 of the Union and the United Kingdom in the Partnership Council established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 19 June 2025

This Joint Declaration expresses the shared political understanding between the European Union and the United Kingdom to continuously pursue the objectives outlined in Title VIII (Energy) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. These objectives focus on facilitating trade and investment in energy and raw materials, ensuring security of supply, and promoting environmental sustainability, particularly in combating climate change. The declaration signifies a commitment to extend the application of Title VIII through future decisions made under the established framework of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Preamble:** The declaration begins by reaffirming the commitment to the full implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It highlights the objectives of Title VIII of the agreement, specifically focusing on energy.
* **Political Understanding:** The core of the declaration lies in the shared political understanding between the EU and the UK. They agree that the objectives of Title VIII should be pursued continuously.
* **Extension of Application:** The declaration outlines the intention to extend the application of Title VIII through successive decisions made in accordance with Article 331(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This article likely details the process for making decisions within the Partnership Council established by the agreement.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

The most important aspect of this declaration is the commitment to the continuous pursuit and extension of Title VIII’s objectives. This signals a long-term focus on energy cooperation between the EU and the UK, with potential implications for businesses and stakeholders involved in the energy sector. The reference to Article 331(2) indicates that future decisions regarding the extension of Title VIII will be made through a specific mechanism within the Trade and Cooperation Agreement’s framework.

Decision No 2/2025 of the Partnership Council established by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part of 19 June 2025 issuing an interpretation of Article 331(2) and extending the application of Part Two, Heading One, Title VIII on energy, of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part [2025/1230]

This Partnership Council Decision No 2/2025 addresses the continuation of energy-related cooperation between the EU and the UK under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It clarifies the timing for extending the application of Title VIII of the Agreement, which covers energy, and ensures its continued application until March 31, 2027. The decision aims to provide legal certainty and predictability for energy stakeholders, supporting trade, investment, security of supply, and environmental sustainability.

The Decision consists of a preamble and three articles. The preamble outlines the context and reasons for the decision, referring to the relevant articles of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and emphasizing the need for legal certainty and continued cooperation in the energy sector.

* **Article 1** provides an interpretation of Article 331(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, clarifying that the Partnership Council can decide to extend Title VIII before July 1, 2026, as long as the extension takes effect on July 1, 2026.
* **Article 2** extends the application of Part Two, Heading One, Title VIII of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement until March 31, 2027.
* **Article 3** specifies that the decision enters into force on the day of its adoption, but the extension of Title VIII takes effect on July 1, 2026.

The most important provision is Article 2, which extends the application of Title VIII, ensuring the continuation of the energy-related provisions of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK until March 31, 2027. This provides a stable and predictable legal framework for businesses and market participants in the energy sector.

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 56/2025 of 14 March 2025 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2025/1218]

This is a Decision of the EEA Joint Committee amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement. The Decision incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2770 into the EEA Agreement, specifically addressing technical regulations, standards, testing, and certification. This inclusion ensures that the EEA Agreement reflects the updated EU regulations concerning biodegradability criteria for coating agents and water retention polymers. The Decision also mandates the publication of the Delegated Regulation in Icelandic and Norwegian languages and specifies the entry into force date, contingent upon necessary notifications.

The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the need for the amendment, followed by four articles. Article 1 introduces the amendment by adding a reference to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2770 within Chapter XIV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. Article 2 mandates the publication of the regulation in Icelandic and Norwegian. Article 3 stipulates the entry into force date, and Article 4 concerns the publication of the Decision itself. This Decision updates Annex II to include the new regulation, ensuring alignment between EU and EEA regulations.

The most important provision is Article 1, which directly incorporates Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2770 into the EEA Agreement. This means that the biodegradability criteria for coating agents and water retention polymers, as defined in the EU regulation, will now also apply within the EEA. Businesses and stakeholders operating within the EEA need to be aware of these updated criteria to ensure compliance.

United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration

This Convention aims to establish a harmonized legal framework for fair and efficient settlement of international investment disputes by promoting transparency in treaty-based investor-State arbitration. It ensures the application of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency to investor-State arbitrations, particularly those based on investment treaties concluded before 1 April 2014. The Convention addresses the public interest in such arbitrations by making the proceedings more transparent. It allows parties to make specific reservations regarding the application of the Convention to certain investment treaties or arbitration rules.

The Convention consists of 11 articles covering various aspects of its application, reservations, and entry into force.

* **Article 1** defines the scope of application, specifying that it applies to arbitrations between an investor and a State or a regional economic integration organization based on investment treaties concluded before 1 April 2014. It also defines the term “investment treaty.”
* **Article 2** outlines the application of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, stating that these rules apply if the respondent is a Party that has not made a relevant reservation, and the claimant is of a State that is a Party that has not made a relevant reservation. It also addresses situations where the claimant agrees to the application of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.
* **Article 3** details the reservations that Parties can make, including declarations that the Convention shall not apply to investor-State arbitration under a specific investment treaty or when using specific arbitration rules.
* **Article 4** specifies the form and timing of reservations, allowing Parties to make reservations at any time, except for revisions to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.
* **Article 5** clarifies that the Convention and any reservations apply only to investor-State arbitrations commenced after the Convention enters into force for each Party.
* **Articles 6-11** cover administrative and procedural matters, including the designation of the depositary (Secretary-General of the United Nations), signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, accession, participation by regional economic integration organizations, entry into force, amendment, and denunciation of the Convention.

The most important provisions for practical use are those concerning the application of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency (Article 2) and the ability of Parties to make reservations (Article 3). Article 2 determines when and how the transparency rules apply, while Article 3 allows Parties to tailor the Convention’s application to their specific needs and treaty obligations. These provisions ensure a balance between promoting transparency and respecting the sovereign rights of States in investment treaty arbitration.

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters of the Principality of Liechtenstein in the case of Valair AG v Amt für Volkswirtschaft (Amt für Hochbau und Raumplanung (AHR) (Case E-1/25)

This document is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters of the Principality of Liechtenstein in the case of Valair AG v Amt für Volkswirtschaft (Amt für Hochbau und Raumplanung (AHR)). The request concerns the interpretation of EU Regulation No 1008/2008 regarding air services and its compatibility with EEA law, specifically concerning the conditions under which air operator certificates and operating licenses can be issued. The Liechtenstein Board of Appeal seeks clarification on whether national authorities can impose additional conditions beyond those stipulated in the EU regulation and whether Liechtenstein’s aviation regulations, which effectively prevent the issuance of licenses for passenger flights using fixed-wing aircraft due to the lack of airport infrastructure, are compatible with the freedom to provide services under the EEA Agreement.

The document presents three questions to the EFTA Court. The first question asks whether Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 or any other EEA provision prevents a Member State’s licensing authority from imposing further conditions on air service operations. The second question, contingent on a negative answer to the first, asks whether a provision requiring actual infrastructure in Liechtenstein for issuing air operator certificates and operating licenses is precluded by the objective of establishing an internal aviation market or other principles of EEA law. The third question, contingent on a negative answer to the second, asks whether Article 9(3) of the Liechtenstein Aviation Act, which effectively excludes issuing licenses for passenger flights using fixed-wing aircraft due to the absence of airport infrastructure, is compatible with Article 36 of the EEA Agreement (freedom to provide services).

The main provisions of this document lie in the specific questions posed to the EFTA Court. These questions address the core issue of the extent to which national regulations can restrict the operation of air services within the EEA, particularly when those restrictions are based on the absence of specific infrastructure within the country. The most important aspect of this document is the potential impact the EFTA Court’s advisory opinion could have on the interpretation and application of EU air service regulations within the EEA, and specifically in Liechtenstein.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 March 2025 in Case E-13/24 – Friends of the Earth Norway and Young Friends of the Earth Norway v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (Environment – Directive 2000/60/EC – Framework for action in the field of water policy – Article 4(7)(c) – Reasons of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(7))

This is a judgment by the EFTA Court concerning the interpretation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), specifically Article 4(7)(c) which deals with exemptions to environmental objectives based on overriding public interest. The case was brought by Friends of the Earth Norway and Young Friends of the Earth Norway against the Norwegian Government. The court clarifies the conditions under which economic or social considerations can justify activities that may lead to the deterioration of water bodies.

The judgment provides three key clarifications regarding Article 4(7)(c) of the Water Framework Directive. First, it states that a weighing of interests is always required to determine if an overriding public interest exists, and a concrete assessment must be undertaken to ensure the identified interest outweighs the environmental objective. Second, it explicitly states that income generated from economic activity alone cannot be considered an overriding public interest. Third, it clarifies that considerations linked to the social and economic situation of a particular area, the contribution of a project to the security of supply, or the supply of critical raw materials within the EEA may be considered an overriding public interest, provided all other conditions of Article 4(7) are met.

The most important aspect of this judgment is its clarification on what constitutes an “overriding public interest” in the context of water policy. It prevents the justification of environmentally damaging projects solely on the basis of economic gain. However, it opens the door for justifications based on social, economic, or strategic considerations, such as security of supply or critical raw materials, provided a thorough assessment is conducted and all other conditions in Article 4(7) are fulfilled. This provides a framework for balancing environmental protection with other societal needs.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 February 2025 in Case E-14/24 – Elmatica AS v Confidee AS and Vidar Olsen (Directive (EU) 2016/943 – Rules on evidence and disclosure of confidential information – Trade secrets – Weighing-up of interests – Principle of effective judicial protection)

This is a judgment from the EFTA Court concerning the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets. The case involves a dispute between Elmatica AS and Confidee AS and Vidar Olsen, and the Supreme Court of Norway requested the EFTA Court’s interpretation of the Directive. The judgment clarifies how national courts should balance the need for effective legal protection and due examination of claims with the protection of business confidentiality, including trade secrets. It also addresses the extent to which national courts are obligated to examine evidence containing trade secrets.

The judgment consists of two main points. The first point emphasizes that national courts must weigh the competing interests on a case-by-case basis to balance effective legal protection and the protection of trade secrets. The second point clarifies that national courts are not always obligated to obtain and examine all disputed evidence containing trade secrets. Instead, they have the discretion to do so when necessary for a proper assessment, exercising this discretion in accordance with general principles of EEA law.

The most important provision for practical use is the clarification regarding the national court’s discretion in handling evidence containing trade secrets. This means that national courts have flexibility in deciding whether to examine such evidence, but they must exercise this discretion reasonably and in accordance with EEA law principles. This provides guidance for national courts in striking a balance between protecting trade secrets and ensuring fair legal proceedings.

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Court of Appeal in the case of Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS and Others v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment (Case E-2/25)

This document is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Court by the Borgarting Court of Appeal (Norway) in a case involving Sarpsborg Avfallsenergi AS and Others against the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Climate and Environment. The request concerns the interpretation of Directive 2003/87/EC, specifically Annex I, which relates to activities covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The core issue revolves around whether waste incineration plants are excluded from the scope of the ETS Directive, particularly when incineration is not their sole or primary purpose.

The document consists of a concise introduction outlining the parties involved, the date of receipt, and the core issue at hand, followed by the specific questions posed to the EFTA Court.

The main provisions are the two questions presented to the EFTA Court:

* **Question 1:** Asks whether all installations incinerating hazardous or municipal waste are excluded from Directive 2003/87/EC, even if waste incineration is not their primary function.
* **Question 2:** Is contingent on a negative answer to Question 1. It asks what should be assessed and which factors are relevant when determining the applicability of the exception in Annex I of the ETS Directive.

The most important aspect of this document is the request for clarification on the scope of the ETS Directive concerning waste incineration plants. The interpretation of Annex I will determine whether certain installations are subject to the EU’s carbon emissions regulations, which has significant implications for the operators of these facilities and the overall effectiveness of the ETS in reducing emissions from waste management.