Legal Act Reviews<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h5>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184 by introducing a review clause. Specifically, it requires the European Commission to assess, by December 31, 2025, whether to include countries with suspended membership in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the EU’s list of high-risk third countries for money laundering and terrorist financing. The determination will be based on whether these countries meet the criteria outlined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016\/1675.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1758<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation updates Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, which concern the entry of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry into the EU from the United Kingdom. The updates involve adjustments to the specific zones in the UK from which these products are authorized for import, reflecting recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulation specifies changes such as replacing zone entries and adding new zone entries with corresponding geographic descriptions.<\/p>\n<h5>Decision Amending Decision No 4\/2023<\/h5>\n<p>This Decision updates standard forms used for communication and information exchange between EU Member States and the United Kingdom concerning VAT and the recovery of taxes and duties. The changes are designed to improve the forms’ usability and align them with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system. The updated forms will facilitate better administrative cooperation and recovery of claims, and the Annex I to Decision No 4\/2023 containing standard forms has been replaced by the new forms.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Iceland and Regulation (EU) 2023\/315<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/315 into its national law, breaching its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The regulation in question amends regulatory technical standards concerning the effective date of clearing obligations for certain contract types.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 061\/25\/COL<\/h5>\n<p>This decision outlines product and service markets within the electronic communications sector that may be subject to ex-ante regulation. It recommends that national regulatory authorities analyze the specific markets listed in the Annex, focusing on wholesale local access provided at a fixed location and wholesale dedicated capacity. The decision emphasizes promoting competition, the internal market, and end-user interests while encouraging investment in high-capacity networks.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Directive (EU) 2015\/849<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court clarified the interpretation of “legitimate interest” under Article 30(5)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015\/849, which concerns access to beneficial ownership information. The Court stated that victims of predicate offenses related to money laundering or terrorist financing may have a legitimate interest in accessing this information. Furthermore, it confirmed that demonstrating such an interest is both necessary and sufficient for access, providing guidance for national authorities processing such requests.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-9\/23, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court dismissed the application brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that Norway had breached Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Article 3 of the EEA Agreement, and the principle of legal certainty, regarding national rules and practices governing access to inpatient treatment in other EEA States. The Court found no breach by Norway of the cited provisions.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R1393\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393 of 8\u00a0July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU)\u00a02025\/1184 to introduce a review clause<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393 introduces a review clause to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184, which concerns the list of high-risk third countries for money laundering and terrorist financing. The regulation mandates the Commission to assess by December 31, 2025, whether to amend the list of high-risk third countries, considering those whose membership in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is suspended due to violations of its core principles. This assessment will determine if these countries should be added to the list of high-risk third countries as outlined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016\/1675.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 introduces Article 1a into Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184, which stipulates the Commission’s obligation to review third countries with suspended FATF membership and conclude the assessment by December 31, 2025. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation adds a new layer of scrutiny by requiring the Commission to independently assess countries with suspended FATF membership, even if they are not currently subject to increased monitoring or calls for action by the FATF.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is Article 1, which introduces the obligation for the Commission to review and assess third countries with suspended FATF membership by December 31, 2025. This ensures that the EU’s list of high-risk third countries remains up-to-date and responsive to evolving threats to the integrity of the EU financial system, especially considering the current geopolitical situation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R1758\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1758 of 21\u00a0August 2025 amending Annexes\u00a0V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/404 as regards the entries for the United Kingdom in the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry and of fresh meat of poultry<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1758 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, specifically concerning the entries for the United Kingdom in the lists of third countries authorized for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry. The regulation adjusts the zones from which these products can be imported into the EU, based on recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in the UK.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation modifies Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404. It updates Section B of Part 1 and Part 2 of Annex V, and Section B of Part 1 of Annex XIV, which list the zones within the United Kingdom from which poultry and related products can be imported. The amendments include replacing entries for zones GB-2.382 and GB-2.384, adding new entries for zones GB-2.390 and GB-2.391, and providing descriptions for these new zones based on their geographical location in England. These changes reflect the suspension and reauthorization of imports from specific areas due to recent HPAI outbreaks.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for practical use are the updated lists of zones in the UK from which poultry, germinal products, and fresh meat of poultry can be imported into the EU. Businesses involved in importing these products from the UK need to be aware of the specific zones listed in Annexes V and XIV to ensure compliance with EU regulations. The regulation also specifies the dates from which certain restrictions or permissions apply, which is crucial for determining the eligibility of consignments for entry into the Union.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:22025D1755\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Decision No\u00a01\/2025 of the Trade Specialised Committee on Administrative Cooperation in VAT and Recovery of Taxes and Duties 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 31\u00a0July 2025 amending Decision No\u00a04\/2023 on standard forms for the communication of information and statistical data, the transmission of information via the common communication network and the practical arrangements for the organisation of contacts between central liaison offices and liaison departments [2025\/1755]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Decision amends Decision No 4\/2023 regarding standard forms used for communication and exchange of information between the EU Member States and the United Kingdom concerning VAT and recovery of taxes and duties, as outlined in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The amendment aims to update and improve these standard forms to ensure their continued relevance and usability for tax authorities. This includes modifications to the structure of the forms and the introduction of new labels and sections. The changes align the forms with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system, enhancing administrative cooperation and the recovery of claims between the parties.<\/p>\n<p>The Decision consists of two articles. Article 1 stipulates that Annex I to Decision No 4\/2023, which contains the standard forms, is replaced by the text included in the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 states that the Decision will come into effect on the date of its adoption. The core change is the replacement of the existing standard forms with updated versions, designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of information exchange related to VAT and tax recovery. These new forms are intended to align with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system, which has been updated by Commission Implementing Decision C(2024)8903.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of this Decision is the replacement of Annex I to Decision No 4\/2023, as it directly impacts the format and content of the standard forms used by tax authorities in the EU and the UK for requesting and providing information, conducting administrative inquiries, and exchanging information spontaneously. Tax authorities and relevant personnel should familiarize themselves with the new forms to ensure compliance and effective communication under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0022\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 7\u00a0May 2025 in Case E-22\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/315 \u2013 Regulatory technical standards)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/315 into its national law, as required by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought the case against Iceland for not implementing the regulation, which amends regulatory technical standards concerning the effective date of clearing obligations for specific contract types. The Court ruled that Iceland did not fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement. As a result, Iceland is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland), and the legal basis for the claim (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). The core of the judgment is the operative part, which contains two points: 1) a declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2023\/315 into its internal legal order, and 2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the importance of EEA member states incorporating EU regulations into their national law to ensure the uniform application of EEA law across the region. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal obligations of EEA member states and the consequences of failing to meet them.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C0061\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No\u00a0061\/25\/COL of 9\u00a0April 2025 EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Act referred to at point 5czs of Annex\u00a0XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive (EU)\u00a02018\/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11\u00a0December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex\u00a0XI to that Agreement [2025\/1754]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 061\/25\/COL outlines the product and service markets within the electronic communications sector that may be subject to ex-ante regulation. It aims to ensure a uniform application of the regulatory framework within the EEA, promoting competition, the internal market, and end-user interests, while also encouraging investment in high-capacity networks. The recommendation identifies markets where ex-ante regulation may be justified, emphasizing the progressive reduction of sector-specific rules as competition develops.<\/p>\n<p>The decision is structured around several key considerations, including barriers to entry, market structure, and the sufficiency of competition law. It replaces the Authority’s 2016 Recommendation, adapting to technological, market, and regulatory developments. The document considers the criteria for determining whether a market requires ex-ante regulation, focusing on barriers to entry, the tendency towards effective competition, and the adequacy of competition law to address market failures. It also addresses the analysis of geographic markets and specific wholesale broadband markets. The annex lists the specific markets that national regulatory authorities should analyze.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of this act are the recommendation to national regulatory authorities to analyze the product and service markets identified in the Annex, and the instruction to perform the three-criteria test when considering that any of the markets listed in the Annex is not susceptible to ex ante regulation in the specific national circumstances. The recommendation also specifies how national regulatory authorities should identify relevant geographic markets within their territory. The listed markets in the Annex are: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location and Wholesale dedicated capacity.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0001\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court of 7\u00a0May 2025 in Joined Cases E-1\/24 and E-7\/24\u00a0\u2013 TC and\u00a0\u2013 AA (Anti-money laundering \u2013 Directive (EU)\u00a02015\/849 \u2013 Article\u00a030(5)(c) \u2013 Access to beneficial ownership information \u2013 Directive (EU)\u00a02018\/843 \u2013 Validity of legislative acts \u2013 Principle of homogeneity \u2013 Fundamental rights \u2013 Respect for private life \u2013 Protection of personal data \u2013 Freedom of expression \u2013 National procedural autonomy \u2013 Principle of effectiveness \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02016\/679)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court regarding the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2015\/849, specifically Article 30(5)(c), which concerns access to beneficial ownership information in the context of anti-money laundering efforts. The Court clarifies the criteria for accessing this information, particularly what constitutes a ‘legitimate interest’ for those seeking access. The judgment balances the need for transparency in combating financial crime with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection of beneficial owners. It also addresses procedural aspects related to accessing beneficial ownership registers at the national level.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses two separate but related cases (E-1\/24 and E-7\/24). Case E-7\/24 clarifies that individuals harmed by predicate offenses related to money laundering or terrorist financing may have a legitimate interest in accessing beneficial ownership information, with the assessment to be made on a case-by-case basis. It emphasizes that demonstrating a legitimate interest is both necessary and sufficient for access. The judgment also clarifies that while national procedural rules govern access, they must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Case E-1\/24 clarifies that Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015\/849 neither requires nor precludes national legislation from requiring a person requesting access to beneficial ownership information to name the entity in respect of which information is sought.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of this judgment are those that clarify the interpretation of “legitimate interest” in the context of accessing beneficial ownership information. Specifically, the judgment states that victims of predicate offenses may have a legitimate interest, and that demonstrating such an interest is both necessary and sufficient for gaining access. This clarification provides guidance to national authorities and courts in EEA states when implementing the Directive and processing requests for access to beneficial ownership information. The judgment also emphasizes the need for national procedural rules to respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, ensuring that the right to access information is not unduly hindered by overly rigid requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2023J0009\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court of 7\u00a0May 2025 in Case E-9\/23\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Regulation (EC) No\u00a0883\/2004 \u2013 Inpatient treatment abroad \u2013 Alternative schemes \u2013 Effective protection of EEA rights \u2013 Legal certainty \u2013 Article\u00a020(2) of Regulation No\u00a0883\/2004 \u2013 Article\u00a036 EEA \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Article\u00a031 SCA)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a summary of the Judgment of the Court in Case E-9\/23, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway, delivered on May 7, 2025. The case concerned an application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that Norway had breached Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Article 3 of the EEA Agreement, and the principle of legal certainty, regarding national rules and practices governing access to inpatient treatment in other EEA States.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of two points. First, the Court dismissed the application brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. Second, the Court ordered the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs and the costs of the Kingdom of Norway.<\/p>\n<p>The key takeaway from this judgment is that the Court found no breach by Norway of the cited provisions of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 in relation to its national rules and practices governing access to inpatient treatment in other EEA States. This means that Norway’s existing system for authorizing and providing access to such treatment was deemed compliant with EEA law in this particular case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Act Reviews Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393 This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184 by introducing a review clause. Specifically, it requires the European Commission to assess, by December 31, 2025, whether to include countries with suspended membership in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the EU’s list of high-risk third countries for…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-detailed","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":11277,"date":"2025-08-22T10:25:34","date_gmt":"2025-08-22T07:25:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/08\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-22-08-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-08-22T10:25:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-22T07:25:34","slug":"review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-22-08-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/08\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-22-08-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the EU legislation for 22\/08\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\nLegal Act Reviews<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h5>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184 by introducing a review clause. Specifically, it requires the European Commission to assess, by December 31, 2025, whether to include countries with suspended membership in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the EU’s list of high-risk third countries for money laundering and terrorist financing. The determination will be based on whether these countries meet the criteria outlined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016\/1675.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1758<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation updates Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, which concern the entry of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry into the EU from the United Kingdom. The updates involve adjustments to the specific zones in the UK from which these products are authorized for import, reflecting recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulation specifies changes such as replacing zone entries and adding new zone entries with corresponding geographic descriptions.<\/p>\n<h5>Decision Amending Decision No 4\/2023<\/h5>\n<p>This Decision updates standard forms used for communication and information exchange between EU Member States and the United Kingdom concerning VAT and the recovery of taxes and duties. The changes are designed to improve the forms’ usability and align them with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system. The updated forms will facilitate better administrative cooperation and recovery of claims, and the Annex I to Decision No 4\/2023 containing standard forms has been replaced by the new forms.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Iceland and Regulation (EU) 2023\/315<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/315 into its national law, breaching its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The regulation in question amends regulatory technical standards concerning the effective date of clearing obligations for certain contract types.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 061\/25\/COL<\/h5>\n<p>This decision outlines product and service markets within the electronic communications sector that may be subject to ex-ante regulation. It recommends that national regulatory authorities analyze the specific markets listed in the Annex, focusing on wholesale local access provided at a fixed location and wholesale dedicated capacity. The decision emphasizes promoting competition, the internal market, and end-user interests while encouraging investment in high-capacity networks.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Judgment Regarding Directive (EU) 2015\/849<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court clarified the interpretation of “legitimate interest” under Article 30(5)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015\/849, which concerns access to beneficial ownership information. The Court stated that victims of predicate offenses related to money laundering or terrorist financing may have a legitimate interest in accessing this information. Furthermore, it confirmed that demonstrating such an interest is both necessary and sufficient for access, providing guidance for national authorities processing such requests.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-9\/23, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court dismissed the application brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that Norway had breached Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Article 3 of the EEA Agreement, and the principle of legal certainty, regarding national rules and practices governing access to inpatient treatment in other EEA States. The Court found no breach by Norway of the cited provisions.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R1393\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393 of 8\u00a0July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU)\u00a02025\/1184 to introduce a review clause<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393 introduces a review clause to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184, which concerns the list of high-risk third countries for money laundering and terrorist financing. The regulation mandates the Commission to assess by December 31, 2025, whether to amend the list of high-risk third countries, considering those whose membership in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is suspended due to violations of its core principles. This assessment will determine if these countries should be added to the list of high-risk third countries as outlined in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016\/1675.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of two articles. Article 1 introduces Article 1a into Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184, which stipulates the Commission’s obligation to review third countries with suspended FATF membership and conclude the assessment by December 31, 2025. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation adds a new layer of scrutiny by requiring the Commission to independently assess countries with suspended FATF membership, even if they are not currently subject to increased monitoring or calls for action by the FATF.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is Article 1, which introduces the obligation for the Commission to review and assess third countries with suspended FATF membership by December 31, 2025. This ensures that the EU’s list of high-risk third countries remains up-to-date and responsive to evolving threats to the integrity of the EU financial system, especially considering the current geopolitical situation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R1758\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1758 of 21\u00a0August 2025 amending Annexes\u00a0V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/404 as regards the entries for the United Kingdom in the lists of third countries, territories or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry and of fresh meat of poultry<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1758 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, specifically concerning the entries for the United Kingdom in the lists of third countries authorized for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry. The regulation adjusts the zones from which these products can be imported into the EU, based on recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in the UK.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation modifies Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404. It updates Section B of Part 1 and Part 2 of Annex V, and Section B of Part 1 of Annex XIV, which list the zones within the United Kingdom from which poultry and related products can be imported. The amendments include replacing entries for zones GB-2.382 and GB-2.384, adding new entries for zones GB-2.390 and GB-2.391, and providing descriptions for these new zones based on their geographical location in England. These changes reflect the suspension and reauthorization of imports from specific areas due to recent HPAI outbreaks.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for practical use are the updated lists of zones in the UK from which poultry, germinal products, and fresh meat of poultry can be imported into the EU. Businesses involved in importing these products from the UK need to be aware of the specific zones listed in Annexes V and XIV to ensure compliance with EU regulations. The regulation also specifies the dates from which certain restrictions or permissions apply, which is crucial for determining the eligibility of consignments for entry into the Union.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:22025D1755\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Decision No\u00a01\/2025 of the Trade Specialised Committee on Administrative Cooperation in VAT and Recovery of Taxes and Duties 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 31\u00a0July 2025 amending Decision No\u00a04\/2023 on standard forms for the communication of information and statistical data, the transmission of information via the common communication network and the practical arrangements for the organisation of contacts between central liaison offices and liaison departments [2025\/1755]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Decision amends Decision No 4\/2023 regarding standard forms used for communication and exchange of information between the EU Member States and the United Kingdom concerning VAT and recovery of taxes and duties, as outlined in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The amendment aims to update and improve these standard forms to ensure their continued relevance and usability for tax authorities. This includes modifications to the structure of the forms and the introduction of new labels and sections. The changes align the forms with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system, enhancing administrative cooperation and the recovery of claims between the parties.<\/p>\n<p>The Decision consists of two articles. Article 1 stipulates that Annex I to Decision No 4\/2023, which contains the standard forms, is replaced by the text included in the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 states that the Decision will come into effect on the date of its adoption. The core change is the replacement of the existing standard forms with updated versions, designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of information exchange related to VAT and tax recovery. These new forms are intended to align with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system, which has been updated by Commission Implementing Decision C(2024)8903.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of this Decision is the replacement of Annex I to Decision No 4\/2023, as it directly impacts the format and content of the standard forms used by tax authorities in the EU and the UK for requesting and providing information, conducting administrative inquiries, and exchanging information spontaneously. Tax authorities and relevant personnel should familiarize themselves with the new forms to ensure compliance and effective communication under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0022\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 7\u00a0May 2025 in Case E-22\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/315 \u2013 Regulatory technical standards)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/315 into its national law, as required by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought the case against Iceland for not implementing the regulation, which amends regulatory technical standards concerning the effective date of clearing obligations for specific contract types. The Court ruled that Iceland did not fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement. As a result, Iceland is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland), and the legal basis for the claim (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). The core of the judgment is the operative part, which contains two points: 1) a declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2023\/315 into its internal legal order, and 2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. There are no previous versions mentioned in the text.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the importance of EEA member states incorporating EU regulations into their national law to ensure the uniform application of EEA law across the region. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal obligations of EEA member states and the consequences of failing to meet them.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C0061\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No\u00a0061\/25\/COL of 9\u00a0April 2025 EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Act referred to at point 5czs of Annex\u00a0XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive (EU)\u00a02018\/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11\u00a0December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex\u00a0XI to that Agreement [2025\/1754]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 061\/25\/COL outlines the product and service markets within the electronic communications sector that may be subject to ex-ante regulation. It aims to ensure a uniform application of the regulatory framework within the EEA, promoting competition, the internal market, and end-user interests, while also encouraging investment in high-capacity networks. The recommendation identifies markets where ex-ante regulation may be justified, emphasizing the progressive reduction of sector-specific rules as competition develops.<\/p>\n<p>The decision is structured around several key considerations, including barriers to entry, market structure, and the sufficiency of competition law. It replaces the Authority’s 2016 Recommendation, adapting to technological, market, and regulatory developments. The document considers the criteria for determining whether a market requires ex-ante regulation, focusing on barriers to entry, the tendency towards effective competition, and the adequacy of competition law to address market failures. It also addresses the analysis of geographic markets and specific wholesale broadband markets. The annex lists the specific markets that national regulatory authorities should analyze.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of this act are the recommendation to national regulatory authorities to analyze the product and service markets identified in the Annex, and the instruction to perform the three-criteria test when considering that any of the markets listed in the Annex is not susceptible to ex ante regulation in the specific national circumstances. The recommendation also specifies how national regulatory authorities should identify relevant geographic markets within their territory. The listed markets in the Annex are: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location and Wholesale dedicated capacity.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0001\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court of 7\u00a0May 2025 in Joined Cases E-1\/24 and E-7\/24\u00a0\u2013 TC and\u00a0\u2013 AA (Anti-money laundering \u2013 Directive (EU)\u00a02015\/849 \u2013 Article\u00a030(5)(c) \u2013 Access to beneficial ownership information \u2013 Directive (EU)\u00a02018\/843 \u2013 Validity of legislative acts \u2013 Principle of homogeneity \u2013 Fundamental rights \u2013 Respect for private life \u2013 Protection of personal data \u2013 Freedom of expression \u2013 National procedural autonomy \u2013 Principle of effectiveness \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02016\/679)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court regarding the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2015\/849, specifically Article 30(5)(c), which concerns access to beneficial ownership information in the context of anti-money laundering efforts. The Court clarifies the criteria for accessing this information, particularly what constitutes a ‘legitimate interest’ for those seeking access. The judgment balances the need for transparency in combating financial crime with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection of beneficial owners. It also addresses procedural aspects related to accessing beneficial ownership registers at the national level.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses two separate but related cases (E-1\/24 and E-7\/24). Case E-7\/24 clarifies that individuals harmed by predicate offenses related to money laundering or terrorist financing may have a legitimate interest in accessing beneficial ownership information, with the assessment to be made on a case-by-case basis. It emphasizes that demonstrating a legitimate interest is both necessary and sufficient for access. The judgment also clarifies that while national procedural rules govern access, they must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Case E-1\/24 clarifies that Article 30(5) of Directive (EU) 2015\/849 neither requires nor precludes national legislation from requiring a person requesting access to beneficial ownership information to name the entity in respect of which information is sought.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of this judgment are those that clarify the interpretation of “legitimate interest” in the context of accessing beneficial ownership information. Specifically, the judgment states that victims of predicate offenses may have a legitimate interest, and that demonstrating such an interest is both necessary and sufficient for gaining access. This clarification provides guidance to national authorities and courts in EEA states when implementing the Directive and processing requests for access to beneficial ownership information. The judgment also emphasizes the need for national procedural rules to respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, ensuring that the right to access information is not unduly hindered by overly rigid requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2023J0009\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court of 7\u00a0May 2025 in Case E-9\/23\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Regulation (EC) No\u00a0883\/2004 \u2013 Inpatient treatment abroad \u2013 Alternative schemes \u2013 Effective protection of EEA rights \u2013 Legal certainty \u2013 Article\u00a020(2) of Regulation No\u00a0883\/2004 \u2013 Article\u00a036 EEA \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Article\u00a031 SCA)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a summary of the Judgment of the Court in Case E-9\/23, EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway, delivered on May 7, 2025. The case concerned an application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that Norway had breached Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Article 3 of the EEA Agreement, and the principle of legal certainty, regarding national rules and practices governing access to inpatient treatment in other EEA States.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of two points. First, the Court dismissed the application brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. Second, the Court ordered the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs and the costs of the Kingdom of Norway.<\/p>\n<p>The key takeaway from this judgment is that the Court found no breach by Norway of the cited provisions of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 883\/2004 in relation to its national rules and practices governing access to inpatient treatment in other EEA States. This means that Norway’s existing system for authorizing and providing access to such treatment was deemed compliant with EEA law in this particular case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Act Reviews Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1393 This regulation amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1184 by introducing a review clause. Specifically, it requires the European Commission to assess, by December 31, 2025, whether to include countries with suspended membership in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the EU’s list of high-risk third countries for…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-detailed","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}