Legal Acts Review<\/title> \n<\/head><\/p>\n<h4>Review of EU Legal Acts<\/h4>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960: Harmonized Guarantees<\/h5>\nThis regulation aims to empower consumers by standardizing information on product guarantees. It mandates a harmonized notice explaining the legal guarantee of conformity\u2014your basic consumer rights if a product doesn’t work as expected. Additionally, it introduces a voluntary harmonized label for manufacturers offering commercial guarantees of durability, essentially a promise about how long a product will last. Both the notice and the label include a QR code that links to more information on the ‘Your Europe’ portal. The goal is to make it easier for consumers to understand the difference between these guarantees and make informed purchasing decisions, with specific design requirements in the annexes.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1993: ‘Carne Salada del Trentino’ PGI<\/h5>\nThis regulation formally protects ‘Carne Salada del Trentino’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). Only meat produced in the Trentino region of Italy according to specific rules can be sold under that name within the EU. This provides a marketing advantage for authentic producers and assures consumers of the product’s origin and quality. Any misuse of the name is now legally prohibited.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1995: ‘Olive taggiasche liguri’ PGI<\/h5>\nThis regulation registers ‘Olive taggiasche liguri’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). Similar to ‘Carne Salada del Trentino’, this means only olives from the Liguria region of Italy meeting specific production standards can be sold under that protected name within the EU. Consumers are guaranteed the origin and quality of the product, and the name is protected from misuse.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1994: ‘Tharsys’ PDO<\/h5>\nThis regulation registers ‘Tharsys’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), granting it legal protection across the EU. This designation ensures that only products originating from a specific region in Spain and produced according to particular standards can be marketed as ‘Tharsys’. This protects the name from misuse and helps consumers identify authentic products tied to that region.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2011: Avian Influenza Restrictions<\/h5>\nThis regulation modifies the list of countries from which the EU allows poultry, poultry products, and fresh meat of poultry imports. The changes are due to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulation adds restrictions to zones in Canada and the United States with confirmed HPAI cases, while re-authorizing entry from certain zones in the United Kingdom that have resolved previous outbreaks. Businesses importing these products need to pay close attention to the updated lists in the annexes, detailing specific zones and effective dates.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2008: Molasses Import Duties<\/h5>\nThis regulation sets the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector for the marketing year beginning on October 1, 2025. The specific financial terms, including representative price, import duty, and additional duty, for molasses under CN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00 are listed in the annex, which determine the costs for companies importing molasses into the EU.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Laudamotion v. Commission (Aviation Competition)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the European Commission’s decision to reject Laudamotion’s complaint against Lufthansa and Air Berlin regarding alleged anti-competitive behavior at Vienna airport. The court emphasized the Commission’s discretion in prioritizing competition complaints, but also affirmed the obligation to carefully examine all relevant facts and legal arguments. Parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove an anti-competitive agreement.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: AF v. Council (Appraisal Report)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed a case brought by an EU official challenging her appraisal report and seeking damages. The court recognized the wide discretion of reporting officers in evaluating officials, limiting judicial review to procedural regularity, legal compliance, factual accuracy, and absence of manifest error or misuse of powers. The court found that the applicant had been given the opportunity to be heard.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Group Pack v. EUIPO – Obi Group Sourcing (Trade Mark)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, finding a likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark “LUX 1991” and the earlier EU figurative mark “LUX TOOLS”. The judgment clarifies how the court assesses the similarity between marks and determines whether the relevant public is likely to be confused, based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Albot v. Council (Restrictive Measures)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed Maria Albot’s challenge to the Council’s decision to maintain her on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures due to actions destabilizing Moldova. The Court clarified the interpretation of “association” in relation to restrictive measures and confirmed that fundamental rights can be restricted in pursuit of legitimate objectives. The court also recalled that the applicant must provide solid evidence of the damage suffered to be able to claim damages.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: AF v Council (Warning and Legal Costs)<\/h5>\nThe General Court annulled the warning issued to an official and the refusal to reimburse her legal costs, and awarded her compensation for non-material damage. The judgment emphasizes the importance of impartiality in administrative investigations and clarifies that the reimbursement of legal costs applies to all disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Fincantieri NexTech SpA v. European Commission (European Defence Fund)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed Fincantieri NexTech SpA’s claim against the European Commission regarding the rejection of its project proposal for funding under the European Defence Fund (EDF). The court emphasized that the Commission has a wide discretion in awarding grants and that judicial review is limited to verifying procedural rules, factual accuracy, and manifest errors of assessment.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Siemens Healthineers AG v Sunware s. r. o.<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the validity of the EU trade mark “teamplay” held by Siemens Healthineers AG, dismissing Sunware s. r. o.’s challenge based on their earlier Czech national mark “TEAMPLAY”. The court provided guidance on assessing what constitutes “genuine use” of a trade mark and clarified the criteria for determining the likelihood of confusion, particularly regarding “information system software” as an independent subcategory of “computer software.”<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: OC v. Commission (Non-Contractual Liability)<\/h5>\nThe General Court ruled that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) unlawfully processed the personal data of the applicant, OC, in a press release, violated the presumption of innocence, and breached the duty to act diligently and impartially. The Court ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 50,000 in compensation for the damage she suffered as a result of OLAF’s actions.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: EP v. Parliament (Head of Unit)<\/h5>\nThe General Court annulled the decisions of non-confirmation and transfer but rejected the claim for compensation. The Court emphasized that the Parliament must respect its internal rules, especially when they aim to protect its employees. The judgment highlights the importance of providing officials with timely feedback and the opportunity to improve their performance during the confirmation period.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Eti G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e v. EUIPO<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision, finding no likelihood of confusion between the “Poof!\u2026and done” mark and the “ETI PUF” mark. The court considered the relevant public, the similarity of the goods and services, and the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks. It concluded that the differences between the marks were significant enough to prevent confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: BNetzA v. ACER<\/h5>\nThe General Court annuls part of ACER’s decision, finding that requirements related to the inclusion of internal network elements in capacity calculations go beyond what is permitted by the regulations. The court’s decision emphasizes that internal network elements significantly influenced by cross-zonal exchanges should be included in capacity calculations without additional economic efficiency hurdles.<\/p>\n<h5>Entry into Force: EU-Brazil Visa Waiver Agreement<\/h5>\nThis Official Journal notice announces that the amending Agreement between the European Union and Brazil regarding short-stay visa waivers for ordinary passport holders will enter into force on March 1, 2026. This is the date from which the changes introduced by the amending agreement will be applicable.<\/p>\n<h3>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501960\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the design and content of the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity and of the harmonised label for the commercial guarantee of durability<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960 specifies the design and content requirements for the harmonized notice on the legal guarantee of conformity and the harmonized label for the commercial guarantee of durability, aiming to increase consumer awareness and promote sustainable purchasing decisions. The regulation mandates the use of a harmonized notice to inform consumers about their legal guarantee rights and introduces a voluntary harmonized label for producers offering commercial guarantees of durability. These measures are designed to work together, highlighting the differences between the two types of guarantees and providing consumers with clear, accessible information.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 defines that the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity shall comply with the design and content set out in Annex I to this Regulation. Article 2 defines that the harmonised label for the commercial guarantee of durability shall comply with the design and content set out in Annex II to this Regulation. Article 3 specifies the entry into force and application date of the regulation. Annex I provides the design and content for the harmonized notice on the legal guarantee of conformity, including specific color codes, QR code functionality, and size requirements. Annex II details the design and content for the harmonized label for the commercial guarantee of durability, specifying editable and non-editable elements, color codes, font types, and display options, including a nested display format for online interfaces.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions for practical use include the specific designs and content outlined in Annexes I and II, which must be followed by traders and producers. The regulation mandates the inclusion of a QR code on both the notice and the label, linking to additional information on the Your Europe portal. The regulation also specifies the conditions under which the notice and label can be displayed in black and white versus color, and it provides flexibility for displaying the label in a nested format for online contracts.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501993\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1993 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Carne Salada del Trentino (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1993 officially registers \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. This registration confirms that \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 meets the criteria for geographical indications as defined in Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143. The regulation ensures legal protection for the name \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 within the EU, preventing its misuse and guaranteeing consumers that the product originates from the specified region and adheres to specific quality standards. The act is based on an application from Italy and follows the necessary procedures outlined in the relevant EU regulations.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and reasoning for the registration, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications, referencing Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that it is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation repeals and replaces the previous Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012.<\/p>\nThe most important provision of this regulation is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the geographical indication \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019. This means that only products produced in the Trentino region of Italy according to the defined specifications can be marketed under that name within the European Union. Producers and consumers should be aware of this registration, as it provides both a marketing advantage for authentic producers and a guarantee of origin and quality for consumers.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501995\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1995 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Olive taggiasche liguri (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1995 registers \u2018Olive taggiasche liguri\u2019 as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. This means that the name is now protected across the EU, and only olives produced in accordance with the product specification can be sold under that name. The registration is based on an application from Italy and follows the rules set out in Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143 on geographical indications.<\/p>\nThe Regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the name \u2018Olive taggiasche liguri\u2019 (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, making it binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation implements the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143, which repealed and replaced Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the geographical indication \u2018Olive taggiasche liguri\u2019 (PGI). This protection prevents misuse, imitation, or evocation of the name and ensures that consumers can trust the origin and quality of olives sold under this name.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501994\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1994 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Tharsys (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1994 registers the geographical indication \u2018Tharsys\u2019 as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register. This means that \u2018Tharsys\u2019, a product from Spain, now has legal protection across the EU, ensuring that only products originating from that specific region and produced according to specific standards can be marketed under that name. The registration is based on the absence of any objections following the publication of Spain’s application. The regulation itself is short and to the point, formally adding \u2018Tharsys\u2019 to the list of recognized geographical indications.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers \u2018Tharsys\u2019 as a PDO. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation implements Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143, which concerns the registration of geographical indications. It also references the previous application under Regulation (EU) No 1308\/2013, indicating a transition from the old to the new regulatory framework for geographical indications.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the name \u2018Tharsys\u2019 within the EU. This protection prevents misuse, imitation, or evocation of the name for products not conforming to the defined specifications and originating from the specified geographical area. This registration provides a competitive advantage for producers in the \u2018Tharsys\u2019 region and helps consumers identify authentic products with specific characteristics linked to their origin.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502011\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2011 of 1\u00a0October 2025 amending Annexes\u00a0V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2011 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, focusing on the lists of third countries, territories, or zones authorized for the entry into the Union of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. The amendments specifically address entries for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States due to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulation introduces restrictions for specific zones in Canada and the United States where HPAI outbreaks have been confirmed, while re-authorizing entry from certain zones in the United Kingdom following the resolution of previous outbreaks.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404. These amendments involve adding new restricted zones for Canada and the United States, identified by specific codes and geographical coordinates, and updating the entries for the United Kingdom to reflect the changed disease status in certain zones.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions for practical use are the updated lists of authorized third countries, territories, or zones in Annexes V and XIV. These lists determine from which regions the EU will permit the import of poultry, germinal products, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. Businesses involved in the import of these products need to be aware of the specific zones listed for each country, as well as the dates from which restrictions or authorizations apply.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2008\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2008 of 30\u00a0September 2025 fixing the representative prices, import duties and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector from 1\u00a0October 2025<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2008 sets out the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector for the marketing year beginning on 1 October 2025. It aims to ensure fair access to the EU market for imported molasses by adjusting duties based on market prices. The regulation repeals the previous year’s regulation (EU) 2024\/2611.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for molasses under CN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00 are those listed in the annex. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024\/2611. Article 3 states that the regulation comes into force on the day of its publication. The annex specifies the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for the specified CN codes. Compared to previous versions, this regulation updates the specific amounts for these prices and duties based on current market conditions.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is the Annex, which directly sets the financial terms (representative price, import duty, and additional duty) for importing molasses under the specified CN codes. These figures are crucial for businesses involved in the import of molasses, as they determine the costs associated with importing these products into the EU. The import duties are set at zero for both CN codes, but the representative prices are set at EUR 19,57 per 100 kg for molasses under CN code 1703 10 00 and EUR 16,19 per 100 kg for molasses under CN code 1703 90 00.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1026\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Laudamotion GmbH v European Commission.Competition \u2013 Agreements, decisions and concerted practices \u2013 Aviation sector \u2013 Decision rejecting a complaint \u2013 Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773\/2004 \u2013 Concerted practice \u2013 Wet-leased aircraft \u2013 Access to the file \u2013 Principle of good administration \u2013 No Union interest \u2013 Probability of establishing the existence of an infringement \u2013 Reasonable time \u2013 Manifest error of assessment.Case T-1026\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a competition case in the aviation sector. Laudamotion GmbH brought an action against the European Commission for rejecting its complaint against Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) and Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (Air Berlin) concerning an alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which prohibits anti-competitive agreements. The court ultimately dismissed Laudamotion’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Background to the Dispute:** Summarizes Laudamotion’s complaint that Lufthansa and Air Berlin coordinated their activities at Vienna airport through a wet lease agreement, violating competition rules. \n2. **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines Laudamotion’s request to annul the Commission’s decision and for the Commission to pay the costs. \n3. **Law:** Details the legal reasoning and assessment of Laudamotion’s pleas. \n * **First Plea (Breach of Right to Good Administration):** \n * *Part 1:* Alleged failure by the Commission to take meaningful investigative measures. \n * *Part 2:* Alleged breach of the right to be heard and access to the file, specifically regarding the “Air Berlin presentation.” \n * **Second Plea (Manifest Error of Assessment):** \n * *Part 1:* Alleged error in finding a low likelihood of infringement based on an incorrect legal standard. \n * *Part 2:* Alleged error in identifying another plausible explanation for the parallel behavior of Lufthansa and Air Berlin. This part is further divided into three complaints: \n * Overstating Lufthansa’s ability to make independent decisions. \n * Understating the implausibility of the timing of the slot return. \n * Overstating the independence of the slot allocation process. \n * **Third Plea (Anticompetitive Effects):** The court does not examine this plea as the previous pleas were rejected. \n4. **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs between the parties.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the assessment of the Commission’s handling of Laudamotion’s complaint. The court emphasizes the Commission’s discretion in prioritizing and investigating competition complaints, but also highlights the obligation to examine carefully all relevant facts and legal arguments presented by the complainant. The judgment clarifies the scope of the complainant’s right to access documents, which is limited to those documents on which the Commission bases its provisional assessment. Furthermore, the court confirms that parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove an anti-competitive agreement unless it is the only plausible explanation. The court’s review is limited to verifying that the Commission’s decision is not based on incorrect facts, errors of law, manifest errors of appraisal, or misuse of powers.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0154\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025.AF v Council of the European Union.Civil service \u2013 Officials \u2013 Reports procedure \u2013 Appraisal report \u2013 2022 appraisal exercise \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 Manifest error of assessment \u2013 Liability.Case T-154\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between an official, AF, and the Council of the European Union concerning her 2022 appraisal report. The official sought the annulment of her appraisal report and compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a result of the report. The General Court dismissed the action, upholding the validity of the appraisal report and denying compensation.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n* **Background:** Details the applicant’s employment history, medical absences, and the events leading to an administrative investigation and disciplinary proceedings against her for accessing a colleague’s personal data in the staff management IT system. \n* **Appraisal Process:** Describes the appraisal meetings, the initial and reviewed assessment reports, the applicant’s disagreement with the reports, and the involvement of the Reports Committee. \n* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s requests for annulment of the appraisal report and compensation, and the Council’s request for dismissal of the action. \n* **Law:** \n * **Third Plea (Infringement of the Right to be Heard):** Examines whether the applicant’s right to be heard and the principle of good administration were respected during the appraisal process. The Court found that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to express her views and defend her interests. \n * **First and Second Pleas (Materially Incorrect Facts and Manifest Errors of Assessment):** Assesses whether the appraisal report was based on factual errors or manifest errors of assessment. The Court concluded that the reporting officers’ assessment of the applicant’s judgment was justified and consistent with the facts. \n* **Claim for Damages:** Addresses the applicant’s claim for material and non-material damage, which the Court rejected because it was closely associated with the unsuccessful claim for annulment. \n* **Costs:** Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the right to be heard and the assessment of factual errors and manifest errors of assessment in the appraisal report. The Court emphasized that the right to be heard requires that the person concerned has the opportunity to make known their views on matters that may be taken into account to their detriment. However, the Court also recognized the wide discretion enjoyed by reporting officers in appraising the work of officials, limiting judicial review to ensuring procedural regularity, proper application of the law, material accuracy of the facts, and absence of manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0566\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Group Pack sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Opposition proceedings \u2013 Application for EU figurative mark LUX 1991 \u2013 Earlier EU figurative mark LUX TOOLS \u2013 Relative ground for refusal \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.Case T-566\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Group Pack sp. z o.o. for the figurative mark “LUX 1991” and an opposition filed by Obi Group Sourcing GmbH based on their earlier EU figurative mark “LUX TOOLS”. The court ultimately dismisses Group Pack’s action, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal, which found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the details of the trade mark application, the opposition, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It then presents the forms of order sought by the applicant (Group Pack) and the responses from the EUIPO and the intervener (Obi Group Sourcing). The core of the judgment lies in its legal analysis, where the court examines the applicant’s plea of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017\/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. The court assesses the relevant public, compares the goods and services covered by the marks, and conducts a detailed comparison of the marks themselves, considering their distinctive and dominant elements, as well as their visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity. Finally, the court provides a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and rules on the allocation of costs.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act for its use are: \n– **Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001**: This article is the core legal basis for the entire judgment, as it defines the conditions under which a trade mark application can be rejected due to the likelihood of confusion with an earlier trade mark. \n– **The court’s analysis of the distinctive and dominant elements of the marks**: This analysis is crucial for understanding how the court assesses the similarity between the marks and determines whether the relevant public is likely to be confused. \n– **The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion**: This section demonstrates how the court weighs all the relevant factors, including the similarity of the marks and the goods\/services, to reach a final conclusion on whether a likelihood of confusion exists.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0343\"><\/p>\n<h3>Arr\u00eat du Tribunal (cinqui\u00e8me chambre) du 1er octobre 2025.#Maria Albot contre Conseil de l’Union europ\u00e9enne.#Politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 commune \u2013 Mesures restrictives prises en raison des actions d\u00e9stabilisant la Moldavie \u2013 Gel des fonds \u2013 Restrictions en mati\u00e8re d\u2019admission sur le territoire des \u00c9tats membres \u2013 Listes des personnes, des entit\u00e9s et des organismes auxquels s\u2019applique le gel des fonds et des ressources \u00e9conomiques ou faisant l\u2019objet de restrictions en mati\u00e8re d\u2019admission sur le territoire des \u00c9tats membres \u2013 Maintien du nom du requ\u00e9rant sur les listes \u2013 Association \u00e0 des personnes inscrites sur les listes \u2013 Article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous b), et article 2, paragraphe 1, sous b), de la d\u00e9cision (PESC) 2023\/891 \u2013 Article 2, paragraphe 3, sous b), du r\u00e8glement (UE) 2023\/888 \u2013 Obligation de motivation \u2013 Exception d\u2019ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 \u2013 Erreur d\u2019appr\u00e9ciation \u2013 Libert\u00e9 d\u2019entreprise \u2013 Droit de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 \u2013 Libert\u00e9 d\u2019association \u2013 Libert\u00e9 d\u2019expression \u2013 Responsabilit\u00e9 non contractuelle.#Affaire T-343\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Maria Albot due to actions destabilizing Moldova.<\/p>\n**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe judgment concerns Maria Albot’s challenge to the Council of the European Union’s decisions to maintain her name on the lists of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) due to actions destabilizing Moldova. Albot argues that these measures lack legal basis, sufficient justification, and violate her fundamental rights. The General Court dismisses her claims, upholding the Council’s decisions.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Background:** Describes the context of the restrictive measures, the relevant EU decisions and regulations, and the reasons for including Albot on the lists. \n* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes Albot’s arguments for annulment and damages, and the Council’s counter-arguments. \n* **Legal Analysis:** \n * **Annulment Claims:** Examines Albot’s arguments regarding the legality of the Council’s decisions, including: \n * Alleged illegality of the underlying decisions and regulations establishing the restrictive measures regime. \n * Violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. \n * Errors in assessment by the Council. \n * Violation of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. \n * **Damages Claims:** Assesses Albot’s claims for compensation for alleged reputational damage and financial loss. \n* **Decision:** Dismisses Albot’s claims and orders her to pay the costs.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\nThe judgment focuses on the application of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023\/891 and Council Regulation (EU) 2023\/888, which establish the framework for restrictive measures against individuals and entities destabilizing Moldova. The key provisions at issue are those that allow for the listing of individuals “associated” with those responsible for destabilizing actions.<\/p>\nThe judgment does not introduce new legislation or change existing laws. Instead, it interprets and applies existing EU law to the specific case of Maria Albot.<\/p>\n**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\nThe most important aspects of the judgment are:<\/p>\n* **Interpretation of “Association”:** The Court clarifies that the concept of “association” can encompass individuals linked by common interests, even if those interests are not explicitly stated. \n* **Evidentiary Standards:** The Court confirms that the Council has the burden of proving the grounds for listing, but it also acknowledges the Council’s broad discretion in assessing the evidence. \n* **Fundamental Rights:** The Court reaffirms that fundamental rights are not absolute and can be restricted in the pursuit of legitimate objectives, such as supporting democracy and the rule of law in a third country. \n* **Burden of Proof:** The court highlights that the applicant must provide solid evidence of the damage suffered to be able to claim damages.<\/p>\nThis judgment provides valuable guidance on the application of EU restrictive measures, particularly in the context of actions destabilizing third countries. It clarifies the scope of the “association” criterion and the evidentiary standards required to justify the listing of individuals.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1047\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025.AF v Council of the European Union.Civil service \u2013 Officials \u2013 Administrative investigation \u2013 Annex IX to the Staff Regulations \u2013 Disciplinary proceedings without consultation of the Disciplinary Board \u2013 Warning \u2013 Principle of impartiality \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2018\/1725 \u2013 Protection of personal data \u2013 Reimbursement of costs \u2013 Article 21 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations \u2013 Liability \u2013 Non-material damage.Case T-1047\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025 in Case T-1047\/23, AF v Council of the European Union.<\/p>\n**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe judgment concerns an action brought by an official, AF, against the Council of the European Union, seeking the annulment of a warning issued to her following an administrative investigation and the refusal to reimburse her legal costs. The official also sought compensation for non-material and material damage allegedly suffered as a result of these decisions. The General Court annulled both the warning and the decision refusing reimbursement of legal costs, and awarded the applicant compensation for non-material damage.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the factual circumstances leading to the action, including the administrative investigation into the applicant’s alleged unauthorized access and disclosure of a colleague’s personal data. \n* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s claims, including annulment of the contested decisions, reimbursement of legal costs, and compensation for damages. \n* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and the court’s reasoning. \n * **Claim for Annulment of the First Contested Decision (Warning):** The court upholds the applicant’s claim that the administrative investigation was not conducted impartially, violating Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and relevant Council decisions. The court found a legitimate doubt as to the objective impartiality of the investigation due to the roles and responsibilities of the investigators and the appointing authority regarding data protection, as well as the fact that the investigators were the applicant’s direct colleagues. \n * **Claim for Annulment of the Second Contested Decision (Refusal of Reimbursement):** The court annuls the decision refusing reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 21 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations applies to all disciplinary proceedings, not just those involving the Disciplinary Board. \n * **Claim for Payment of Costs Incurred in Disciplinary Proceedings:** The court orders the Council to pay the applicant’s legal costs of EUR 2,413.95, plus default interest. \n * **Claim for Damages:** The court rejects the claim for material damages but awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in compensation for non-material damage related to the deterioration of her health as a result of the flawed investigation procedure. \n* **Costs:** The Council, as the unsuccessful party, is ordered to pay the costs.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions Important for Use:**<\/p>\n1. **Impartiality of Administrative Investigations:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of impartiality in administrative investigations, particularly concerning potential conflicts of interest and the need to avoid even the appearance of bias. \n2. **Reimbursement of Legal Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings:** The judgment clarifies that Article 21 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, concerning the reimbursement of legal costs, applies to all disciplinary proceedings, regardless of whether the Disciplinary Board is consulted. \n3. **Compensation for Non-Material Damage:** The judgment acknowledges that the annulment of an unlawful act may not always be sufficient compensation for non-material damage, especially when the act has a significant impact on the individual’s health or reputation. \n4. **Conditions for liability:** The judgment recalls conditions for an action for compensation to be successful.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1191\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Fincantieri NexTech SpA v European Commission.Award of grants in the field of defence \u2013 EDF \u2013 Funding of research actions \u2013 Call for proposals EDF\u20112022-RA \u2013 Rejection of the applicant\u2019s proposal \u2013 Manifest error of assessment.Case T-1191\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a case brought by Fincantieri NexTech SpA against the European Commission. The case concerns the rejection of Fincantieri’s project proposal for funding under the European Defence Fund (EDF). The court examines whether the Commission made errors in its assessment of the proposal, specifically regarding the criteria for awarding grants.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment includes an overview of the background to the dispute, the arguments presented by Fincantieri, and the court’s legal analysis. Fincantieri claimed that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in evaluating its proposal and infringed Article 12 of the EDF Regulation. The court addresses each of these claims, examining the specific award criteria and the Commission’s reasoning for rejecting the proposal. The court assesses whether the Commission’s evaluation was implausible or contradictory.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the court’s interpretation of the EDF Regulation and the Commission’s discretion in awarding grants. The court emphasizes that the Commission has a wide discretion in this area and that judicial review is limited to verifying procedural rules, factual accuracy, and manifest errors of assessment. The court finds that Fincantieri failed to demonstrate that the Commission’s assessment was implausible or contradictory, and therefore dismisses the action.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1175\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Siemens Healthineers AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 EU word mark teamplay \u2013 Earlier national word mark TEAMPLAY \u2013 Relative ground for invalidity \u2013 Genuine use of the earlier mark \u2013 Article 57(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009 \u2013 Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207\/2009 \u2013 Independent subcategory of goods and services \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Similarity between the goods and services \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207\/2009.Case T-1175\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis judgment from the General Court addresses a dispute over the validity of the EU trade mark “teamplay” held by Siemens Healthineers AG. The case was brought by Sunware s. r. o., who sought to invalidate the EU mark based on their earlier Czech national mark “TEAMPLAY”. The core issue revolves around whether the use of Sunware’s earlier mark was genuine and whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment involves an examination of several pleas raised by Siemens Healthineers AG against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). These pleas include alleged infringements of procedural rules, genuine use of the earlier mark, and the likelihood of confusion. The court systematically addresses each plea, providing detailed reasoning for its conclusions.<\/p>\nThe key provisions of the judgment concern the interpretation and application of Article 57(5) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009 (now replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), which deal with the genuine use of a trade mark, and Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of the same regulation, concerning the likelihood of confusion. The court delves into what constitutes “genuine use” and how to assess the similarity of goods and services for the purpose of determining the likelihood of confusion. The judgment clarifies that “information system software” can be considered an independent subcategory of “computer software” and provides guidance on assessing the extent of genuine use based on factors like the nature of the products, market characteristics, and frequency of use.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62020TJ0384(01)\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2025.OC v European Commission.Non-contractual liability \u2013 OLAF investigation \u2013 Press release \u2013 Processing of personal data \u2013 Presumption of innocence \u2013 Principle of good administration \u2013 Duty to act diligently \u2013 Confidentiality of OLAF investigations \u2013 Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals \u2013 Causal link \u2013 Damage.Case T-384\/20 RENV.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a non-contractual liability claim against the European Commission. The case revolves around a press release issued by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning an investigation into potential irregularities in a research project funded by the EU. The applicant, OC, claims that the press release unlawfully processed her personal data, violated the presumption of innocence, and infringed the principles of good administration, causing her damage.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Background:** Details the facts leading to the dispute, including the research project, OLAF’s investigation, and the publication of the press release. \n* **Annulled Judgment:** Summarizes the initial decision of the General Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim. \n* **Judgment on Appeal:** Explains the Court of Justice’s decision to overturn the General Court’s initial judgment on certain grounds and refer the case back to the General Court. \n* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s request for compensation and the Commission’s request for dismissal of the action. \n* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis. \n * It examines whether the conditions for the EU to incur non-contractual liability are met: unlawfulness of conduct, actual damage, and a causal link between the conduct and the damage. \n * It assesses the alleged infringements of EU law, including violations of Regulation 2018\/1725 (data protection), the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the right to good administration. \n * It analyzes whether OLAF’s conduct was unlawful and, if so, whether the breach was sufficiently serious. \n * It examines the damage alleged by the applicant and whether there is a causal link between OLAF’s conduct and the damage. \n* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings. \n* **Operative part:** The final decision of the General Court.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\nThe judgment focuses on whether OLAF’s press release violated the applicant’s rights and caused her damage. The Court found that OLAF unlawfully processed the applicant’s personal data by including details that were not necessary to inform the public about the investigation. It also found that OLAF breached the principle of the presumption of innocence by using the term “fraud” in the press release, which implied guilt. Furthermore, the Court concluded that OLAF failed to act diligently and impartially by disclosing inaccurate information and presenting the investigation’s findings in a biased manner.<\/p>\nCompared to the initial judgment, this decision takes into account the Court of Justice’s findings on appeal, which overturned the General Court’s earlier conclusions on the identifiability of the applicant and the applicability of data protection rules.<\/p>\n**Most Important Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment are those relating to:<\/p>\n* **Unlawful processing of personal data:** The Court’s finding that OLAF violated data protection rules by including unnecessary personal details in the press release. \n* **Breach of the presumption of innocence:** The Court’s conclusion that OLAF’s use of the term “fraud” implied guilt and violated the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. \n* **Breach of the duty to act diligently and impartially:** The Court’s finding that OLAF disclosed inaccurate information and presented the investigation’s findings in a biased manner. \n* **Causal link and damage:** The Court’s analysis of the causal link between OLAF’s conduct and the damage suffered by the applicant, including damage to her reputation, professional career, and health.<\/p>\nUltimately, the Court ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 50,000 in compensation for the damage she suffered as a result of OLAF’s actions.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0370\"><\/p>\n<h3>Arr\u00eat du Tribunal (dixi\u00e8me chambre) du 1er octobre 2025.#EP contre Parlement europ\u00e9en.#Fonction publique \u2013 Fonctionnaires \u2013 Nomination d\u2019un fonctionnaire en tant que chef d\u2019unit\u00e9 \u2013 Rapport d\u2019\u00e9valuation d\u00e9favorable \u2013 D\u00e9cision de non-confirmation dans les fonctions de chef d\u2019unit\u00e9 \u2013 D\u00e9cision de transfert \u00e0 un poste n\u2019impliquant pas de responsabilit\u00e9s manag\u00e9riales \u2013 Devoir de sollicitude \u2013 Responsabilit\u00e9 \u2013 Pr\u00e9judice moral.#Affaire T-370\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between an EP, a Parliament official, and the European Parliament concerning her non-confirmation as Head of Unit and subsequent transfer. The official contests the decision not to confirm her in the position of Head of Unit, as well as the decision to transfer her to a post without managerial responsibilities, claiming a violation of the duty of care and seeking compensation for the moral prejudice suffered.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Facts**: It outlines the factual background, including EP’s employment history at the Parliament, her selection for the Head of Unit position, the confirmation period, and the unfavorable evaluation report that led to the non-confirmation and transfer decisions. \n2. **Conclusions of the parties**: It summarizes the claims of EP, who seeks the annulment of the decisions and compensation for moral damages, and the Parliament, which requests the rejection of EP’s claims. \n3. **Law**: This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court. \n * It examines the claim for annulment, focusing on the decision of non-confirmation. \n * It assesses the arguments related to the violation of the duty of care, highlighting the internal rules governing the evaluation of officials in management positions. \n * The Court finds that the Parliament did not comply with the internal rules regarding the timeline for communicating difficulties to the official, thus violating the duty of care. \n * It analyzes the decision of transfer, addressing the admissibility of the claim and whether the decision caused harm. \n * The Court concludes that the decision of transfer is closely linked to the decision of non-confirmation and, therefore, must also be annulled. \n * Finally, the Court examines the claim for compensation, finding that the alleged damages are either hypothetical or not sufficiently demonstrated. \n4. **Decision**: The Court annuls the decisions of non-confirmation and transfer but rejects the claim for compensation. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act are those concerning the **duty of care** and the **internal rules for evaluating officials in management positions**. The Court emphasizes that the Parliament must respect its internal rules, especially when they aim to protect its employees. The judgment highlights the importance of providing officials with timely feedback and the opportunity to improve their performance during the confirmation period. The Court also clarifies that a transfer decision can be challenged if it affects an official’s career prospects, even if it does not result in a loss of rank or financial benefits.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0651\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Eti G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 EU figurative mark Poof!\u2026and done \u2013 Earlier EU and national figurative marks ETI PUF \u2013 Relative grounds for invalidity \u2013 No likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001 \u2013 No damage to reputation \u2013 Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017\/1001.Case T-651\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the judgment of the General Court regarding a dispute between Eti G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e (Eti), a Turkish company, and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Dr. Oetker RO SRL (Oetker), a Romanian company, as an intervener. Eti sought to annul the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which had dismissed Eti’s appeal against the Cancellation Division’s decision to reject Eti’s application for a declaration of invalidity of Oetker’s EU trade mark “Poof!\u2026and done”. Eti argued that Oetker’s mark should be invalidated due to the likelihood of confusion with Eti’s earlier EU and national trade marks “ETI PUF”.<\/p>\nThe General Court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks and no damage to the reputation of Eti’s earlier marks. The court considered the relevant public, the similarity of the goods and services, and the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks. It concluded that the differences between the marks were significant enough to prevent confusion among consumers.<\/p>\nThe key points of the judgment are the assessment of the similarity of the marks, focusing on both word and figurative elements, and the determination that the marks are visually and conceptually dissimilar enough to avoid confusion. The court also emphasized that Eti failed to prove that its earlier marks had a reputation that could be damaged by Oetker’s mark. The court also clarifies the criteria for assessing the admissibility of claims against EUIPO decisions, emphasizing that the focus should be on the Board of Appeal’s decision rather than the Cancellation Division’s.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ0600\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 October 2025.Bundesnetzagentur f\u00fcr Elektrizit\u00e4t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (BNetzA) v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.Energy \u2013 Internal market for electricity \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2015\/1222 \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2019\/943 \u2013 Allocation of cross-zonal capacity between bidding zones and congestion management \u2013 Determination of common regional methodologies for the calculation of daily and intraday capacity \u2013 Proposals from the transmission system operators of the \u2018Core\u2019 capacity calculation region \u2013 Internal critical network elements \u2013 Economic efficiency \u2013 Power transfer distribution factor (PTDF) \u2013 Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER.Case T-600\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the allocation of cross-zonal capacity in the internal electricity market. The case revolves around a decision by the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) concerning methodologies for calculating daily and intraday capacity in the “Core” capacity calculation region. The Bundesnetzagentur f\u00fcr Elektrizit\u00e4t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (BNetzA) and the Federal Republic of Germany challenged ACER’s decision, arguing that it imposed unlawful restrictions on the inclusion of internal network elements in capacity calculations.<\/p>\nThe judgment focuses on the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015\/1222 and Regulation (EU) 2019\/943, which govern capacity allocation and congestion management in the electricity sector. The court examines whether ACER’s decision, specifically regarding Article 5(8)(b) and (c) and Article 5(9) of the methodologies at issue, correctly interprets these regulations. These articles impose requirements on transmission system operators (TSOs) to conduct impact assessments and economic efficiency analyses before including internal network elements in capacity calculations. The court ultimately annuls part of ACER’s decision, finding that these requirements go beyond what is permitted by the regulations.<\/p>\nThe key provision at stake is Article 5(8) of the methodologies, which requires TSOs to provide an impact assessment of increasing the threshold for inclusion of internal critical network elements (CNEs) to 10% or higher, as well as an analysis demonstrating that including the element in capacity calculation is economically the most efficient solution. The court found that these requirements impose obligations on TSOs that go beyond the mere communication of a list of internal CNEs and are not in line with the regulations. The court’s decision emphasizes that internal network elements significantly influenced by cross-zonal exchanges should be included in capacity calculations without additional economic efficiency hurdles.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:22025X01998\"><\/p>\n<h3>Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports [2025\/1998]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Official Journal notice announces the entry into force date of the amending Agreement between the European Union and Brazil regarding short-stay visa waivers for ordinary passport holders. The amending agreement modifies the original agreement to potentially update or clarify its terms. The key information is that the agreement will come into effect on March 1, 2026.<\/p>\nThe structure of this document is very simple: it is a single announcement. It states that the internal procedures for ratification were completed on September 9, 2025, paving the way for the entry into force on the specified date. There are no specific provisions outlined in this notice, as it solely concerns the effective date of the amending agreement.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is the date of entry into force: March 1, 2026. This is the date from which the changes introduced by the amending agreement will be applicable, impacting travel between the EU and Brazil for ordinary passport holders.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Legal Acts Review Review of EU Legal Acts Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960: Harmonized Guarantees This regulation aims to empower consumers by standardizing information on product guarantees. It mandates a harmonized notice explaining the legal guarantee of conformity\u2014your basic consumer rights if a product doesn’t work as expected. Additionally, it introduces a voluntary harmonized label…<\/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-12275","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\/12275","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=12275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":12275,"date":"2025-10-02T10:10:52","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T07:10:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/10\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-02-10-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-10-02T10:10:52","modified_gmt":"2025-10-02T07:10:52","slug":"review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-02-10-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/10\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-02-10-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the EU legislation for 02\/10\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\nLegal Acts Review<\/title> \n<\/head><\/p>\n<h4>Review of EU Legal Acts<\/h4>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960: Harmonized Guarantees<\/h5>\nThis regulation aims to empower consumers by standardizing information on product guarantees. It mandates a harmonized notice explaining the legal guarantee of conformity\u2014your basic consumer rights if a product doesn’t work as expected. Additionally, it introduces a voluntary harmonized label for manufacturers offering commercial guarantees of durability, essentially a promise about how long a product will last. Both the notice and the label include a QR code that links to more information on the ‘Your Europe’ portal. The goal is to make it easier for consumers to understand the difference between these guarantees and make informed purchasing decisions, with specific design requirements in the annexes.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1993: ‘Carne Salada del Trentino’ PGI<\/h5>\nThis regulation formally protects ‘Carne Salada del Trentino’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). Only meat produced in the Trentino region of Italy according to specific rules can be sold under that name within the EU. This provides a marketing advantage for authentic producers and assures consumers of the product’s origin and quality. Any misuse of the name is now legally prohibited.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1995: ‘Olive taggiasche liguri’ PGI<\/h5>\nThis regulation registers ‘Olive taggiasche liguri’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). Similar to ‘Carne Salada del Trentino’, this means only olives from the Liguria region of Italy meeting specific production standards can be sold under that protected name within the EU. Consumers are guaranteed the origin and quality of the product, and the name is protected from misuse.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1994: ‘Tharsys’ PDO<\/h5>\nThis regulation registers ‘Tharsys’ as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), granting it legal protection across the EU. This designation ensures that only products originating from a specific region in Spain and produced according to particular standards can be marketed as ‘Tharsys’. This protects the name from misuse and helps consumers identify authentic products tied to that region.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2011: Avian Influenza Restrictions<\/h5>\nThis regulation modifies the list of countries from which the EU allows poultry, poultry products, and fresh meat of poultry imports. The changes are due to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulation adds restrictions to zones in Canada and the United States with confirmed HPAI cases, while re-authorizing entry from certain zones in the United Kingdom that have resolved previous outbreaks. Businesses importing these products need to pay close attention to the updated lists in the annexes, detailing specific zones and effective dates.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2008: Molasses Import Duties<\/h5>\nThis regulation sets the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector for the marketing year beginning on October 1, 2025. The specific financial terms, including representative price, import duty, and additional duty, for molasses under CN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00 are listed in the annex, which determine the costs for companies importing molasses into the EU.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Laudamotion v. Commission (Aviation Competition)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the European Commission’s decision to reject Laudamotion’s complaint against Lufthansa and Air Berlin regarding alleged anti-competitive behavior at Vienna airport. The court emphasized the Commission’s discretion in prioritizing competition complaints, but also affirmed the obligation to carefully examine all relevant facts and legal arguments. Parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove an anti-competitive agreement.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: AF v. Council (Appraisal Report)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed a case brought by an EU official challenging her appraisal report and seeking damages. The court recognized the wide discretion of reporting officers in evaluating officials, limiting judicial review to procedural regularity, legal compliance, factual accuracy, and absence of manifest error or misuse of powers. The court found that the applicant had been given the opportunity to be heard.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Group Pack v. EUIPO – Obi Group Sourcing (Trade Mark)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, finding a likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark “LUX 1991” and the earlier EU figurative mark “LUX TOOLS”. The judgment clarifies how the court assesses the similarity between marks and determines whether the relevant public is likely to be confused, based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Albot v. Council (Restrictive Measures)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed Maria Albot’s challenge to the Council’s decision to maintain her on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures due to actions destabilizing Moldova. The Court clarified the interpretation of “association” in relation to restrictive measures and confirmed that fundamental rights can be restricted in pursuit of legitimate objectives. The court also recalled that the applicant must provide solid evidence of the damage suffered to be able to claim damages.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: AF v Council (Warning and Legal Costs)<\/h5>\nThe General Court annulled the warning issued to an official and the refusal to reimburse her legal costs, and awarded her compensation for non-material damage. The judgment emphasizes the importance of impartiality in administrative investigations and clarifies that the reimbursement of legal costs applies to all disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Fincantieri NexTech SpA v. European Commission (European Defence Fund)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed Fincantieri NexTech SpA’s claim against the European Commission regarding the rejection of its project proposal for funding under the European Defence Fund (EDF). The court emphasized that the Commission has a wide discretion in awarding grants and that judicial review is limited to verifying procedural rules, factual accuracy, and manifest errors of assessment.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Siemens Healthineers AG v Sunware s. r. o.<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the validity of the EU trade mark “teamplay” held by Siemens Healthineers AG, dismissing Sunware s. r. o.’s challenge based on their earlier Czech national mark “TEAMPLAY”. The court provided guidance on assessing what constitutes “genuine use” of a trade mark and clarified the criteria for determining the likelihood of confusion, particularly regarding “information system software” as an independent subcategory of “computer software.”<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: OC v. Commission (Non-Contractual Liability)<\/h5>\nThe General Court ruled that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) unlawfully processed the personal data of the applicant, OC, in a press release, violated the presumption of innocence, and breached the duty to act diligently and impartially. The Court ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 50,000 in compensation for the damage she suffered as a result of OLAF’s actions.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: EP v. Parliament (Head of Unit)<\/h5>\nThe General Court annulled the decisions of non-confirmation and transfer but rejected the claim for compensation. The Court emphasized that the Parliament must respect its internal rules, especially when they aim to protect its employees. The judgment highlights the importance of providing officials with timely feedback and the opportunity to improve their performance during the confirmation period.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: Eti G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e v. EUIPO<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the EUIPO’s decision, finding no likelihood of confusion between the “Poof!\u2026and done” mark and the “ETI PUF” mark. The court considered the relevant public, the similarity of the goods and services, and the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks. It concluded that the differences between the marks were significant enough to prevent confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court: BNetzA v. ACER<\/h5>\nThe General Court annuls part of ACER’s decision, finding that requirements related to the inclusion of internal network elements in capacity calculations go beyond what is permitted by the regulations. The court’s decision emphasizes that internal network elements significantly influenced by cross-zonal exchanges should be included in capacity calculations without additional economic efficiency hurdles.<\/p>\n<h5>Entry into Force: EU-Brazil Visa Waiver Agreement<\/h5>\nThis Official Journal notice announces that the amending Agreement between the European Union and Brazil regarding short-stay visa waivers for ordinary passport holders will enter into force on March 1, 2026. This is the date from which the changes introduced by the amending agreement will be applicable.<\/p>\n<h3>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501960\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the design and content of the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity and of the harmonised label for the commercial guarantee of durability<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960 specifies the design and content requirements for the harmonized notice on the legal guarantee of conformity and the harmonized label for the commercial guarantee of durability, aiming to increase consumer awareness and promote sustainable purchasing decisions. The regulation mandates the use of a harmonized notice to inform consumers about their legal guarantee rights and introduces a voluntary harmonized label for producers offering commercial guarantees of durability. These measures are designed to work together, highlighting the differences between the two types of guarantees and providing consumers with clear, accessible information.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of three articles and two annexes. Article 1 defines that the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity shall comply with the design and content set out in Annex I to this Regulation. Article 2 defines that the harmonised label for the commercial guarantee of durability shall comply with the design and content set out in Annex II to this Regulation. Article 3 specifies the entry into force and application date of the regulation. Annex I provides the design and content for the harmonized notice on the legal guarantee of conformity, including specific color codes, QR code functionality, and size requirements. Annex II details the design and content for the harmonized label for the commercial guarantee of durability, specifying editable and non-editable elements, color codes, font types, and display options, including a nested display format for online interfaces.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions for practical use include the specific designs and content outlined in Annexes I and II, which must be followed by traders and producers. The regulation mandates the inclusion of a QR code on both the notice and the label, linking to additional information on the Your Europe portal. The regulation also specifies the conditions under which the notice and label can be displayed in black and white versus color, and it provides flexibility for displaying the label in a nested format for online contracts.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501993\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1993 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Carne Salada del Trentino (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1993 officially registers \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. This registration confirms that \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 meets the criteria for geographical indications as defined in Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143. The regulation ensures legal protection for the name \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 within the EU, preventing its misuse and guaranteeing consumers that the product originates from the specified region and adheres to specific quality standards. The act is based on an application from Italy and follows the necessary procedures outlined in the relevant EU regulations.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of a preamble that outlines the legal basis and reasoning for the registration, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019 (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications, referencing Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and confirms that it is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation repeals and replaces the previous Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012.<\/p>\nThe most important provision of this regulation is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the geographical indication \u2018Carne Salada del Trentino\u2019. This means that only products produced in the Trentino region of Italy according to the defined specifications can be marketed under that name within the European Union. Producers and consumers should be aware of this registration, as it provides both a marketing advantage for authentic producers and a guarantee of origin and quality for consumers.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501995\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1995 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Olive taggiasche liguri (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1995 registers \u2018Olive taggiasche liguri\u2019 as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) in the Union register. This means that the name is now protected across the EU, and only olives produced in accordance with the product specification can be sold under that name. The registration is based on an application from Italy and follows the rules set out in Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143 on geographical indications.<\/p>\nThe Regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers the name \u2018Olive taggiasche liguri\u2019 (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, making it binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation implements the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143, which repealed and replaced Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the geographical indication \u2018Olive taggiasche liguri\u2019 (PGI). This protection prevents misuse, imitation, or evocation of the name and ensures that consumers can trust the origin and quality of olives sold under this name.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202501994\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1994 of 25\u00a0September 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Tharsys (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1994 registers the geographical indication \u2018Tharsys\u2019 as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the Union register. This means that \u2018Tharsys\u2019, a product from Spain, now has legal protection across the EU, ensuring that only products originating from that specific region and produced according to specific standards can be marketed under that name. The registration is based on the absence of any objections following the publication of Spain’s application. The regulation itself is short and to the point, formally adding \u2018Tharsys\u2019 to the list of recognized geographical indications.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and reasoning behind the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally registers \u2018Tharsys\u2019 as a PDO. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation implements Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143, which concerns the registration of geographical indications. It also references the previous application under Regulation (EU) No 1308\/2013, indicating a transition from the old to the new regulatory framework for geographical indications.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is Article 1, which grants legal protection to the name \u2018Tharsys\u2019 within the EU. This protection prevents misuse, imitation, or evocation of the name for products not conforming to the defined specifications and originating from the specified geographical area. This registration provides a competitive advantage for producers in the \u2018Tharsys\u2019 region and helps consumers identify authentic products with specific characteristics linked to their origin.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502011\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2011 of 1\u00a0October 2025 amending Annexes\u00a0V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2011 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, focusing on the lists of third countries, territories, or zones authorized for the entry into the Union of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. The amendments specifically address entries for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States due to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulation introduces restrictions for specific zones in Canada and the United States where HPAI outbreaks have been confirmed, while re-authorizing entry from certain zones in the United Kingdom following the resolution of previous outbreaks.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 stipulates that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404. These amendments involve adding new restricted zones for Canada and the United States, identified by specific codes and geographical coordinates, and updating the entries for the United Kingdom to reflect the changed disease status in certain zones.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions for practical use are the updated lists of authorized third countries, territories, or zones in Annexes V and XIV. These lists determine from which regions the EU will permit the import of poultry, germinal products, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. Businesses involved in the import of these products need to be aware of the specific zones listed for each country, as well as the dates from which restrictions or authorizations apply.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2008\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2008 of 30\u00a0September 2025 fixing the representative prices, import duties and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector from 1\u00a0October 2025<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2008 sets out the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector for the marketing year beginning on 1 October 2025. It aims to ensure fair access to the EU market for imported molasses by adjusting duties based on market prices. The regulation repeals the previous year’s regulation (EU) 2024\/2611.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for molasses under CN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00 are those listed in the annex. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024\/2611. Article 3 states that the regulation comes into force on the day of its publication. The annex specifies the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for the specified CN codes. Compared to previous versions, this regulation updates the specific amounts for these prices and duties based on current market conditions.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is the Annex, which directly sets the financial terms (representative price, import duty, and additional duty) for importing molasses under the specified CN codes. These figures are crucial for businesses involved in the import of molasses, as they determine the costs associated with importing these products into the EU. The import duties are set at zero for both CN codes, but the representative prices are set at EUR 19,57 per 100 kg for molasses under CN code 1703 10 00 and EUR 16,19 per 100 kg for molasses under CN code 1703 90 00.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1026\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Laudamotion GmbH v European Commission.Competition \u2013 Agreements, decisions and concerted practices \u2013 Aviation sector \u2013 Decision rejecting a complaint \u2013 Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773\/2004 \u2013 Concerted practice \u2013 Wet-leased aircraft \u2013 Access to the file \u2013 Principle of good administration \u2013 No Union interest \u2013 Probability of establishing the existence of an infringement \u2013 Reasonable time \u2013 Manifest error of assessment.Case T-1026\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a competition case in the aviation sector. Laudamotion GmbH brought an action against the European Commission for rejecting its complaint against Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) and Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (Air Berlin) concerning an alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which prohibits anti-competitive agreements. The court ultimately dismissed Laudamotion’s action, upholding the Commission’s decision.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Background to the Dispute:** Summarizes Laudamotion’s complaint that Lufthansa and Air Berlin coordinated their activities at Vienna airport through a wet lease agreement, violating competition rules. \n2. **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines Laudamotion’s request to annul the Commission’s decision and for the Commission to pay the costs. \n3. **Law:** Details the legal reasoning and assessment of Laudamotion’s pleas. \n * **First Plea (Breach of Right to Good Administration):** \n * *Part 1:* Alleged failure by the Commission to take meaningful investigative measures. \n * *Part 2:* Alleged breach of the right to be heard and access to the file, specifically regarding the “Air Berlin presentation.” \n * **Second Plea (Manifest Error of Assessment):** \n * *Part 1:* Alleged error in finding a low likelihood of infringement based on an incorrect legal standard. \n * *Part 2:* Alleged error in identifying another plausible explanation for the parallel behavior of Lufthansa and Air Berlin. This part is further divided into three complaints: \n * Overstating Lufthansa’s ability to make independent decisions. \n * Understating the implausibility of the timing of the slot return. \n * Overstating the independence of the slot allocation process. \n * **Third Plea (Anticompetitive Effects):** The court does not examine this plea as the previous pleas were rejected. \n4. **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs between the parties.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the assessment of the Commission’s handling of Laudamotion’s complaint. The court emphasizes the Commission’s discretion in prioritizing and investigating competition complaints, but also highlights the obligation to examine carefully all relevant facts and legal arguments presented by the complainant. The judgment clarifies the scope of the complainant’s right to access documents, which is limited to those documents on which the Commission bases its provisional assessment. Furthermore, the court confirms that parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove an anti-competitive agreement unless it is the only plausible explanation. The court’s review is limited to verifying that the Commission’s decision is not based on incorrect facts, errors of law, manifest errors of appraisal, or misuse of powers.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0154\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025.AF v Council of the European Union.Civil service \u2013 Officials \u2013 Reports procedure \u2013 Appraisal report \u2013 2022 appraisal exercise \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 Manifest error of assessment \u2013 Liability.Case T-154\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between an official, AF, and the Council of the European Union concerning her 2022 appraisal report. The official sought the annulment of her appraisal report and compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a result of the report. The General Court dismissed the action, upholding the validity of the appraisal report and denying compensation.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n* **Background:** Details the applicant’s employment history, medical absences, and the events leading to an administrative investigation and disciplinary proceedings against her for accessing a colleague’s personal data in the staff management IT system. \n* **Appraisal Process:** Describes the appraisal meetings, the initial and reviewed assessment reports, the applicant’s disagreement with the reports, and the involvement of the Reports Committee. \n* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s requests for annulment of the appraisal report and compensation, and the Council’s request for dismissal of the action. \n* **Law:** \n * **Third Plea (Infringement of the Right to be Heard):** Examines whether the applicant’s right to be heard and the principle of good administration were respected during the appraisal process. The Court found that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to express her views and defend her interests. \n * **First and Second Pleas (Materially Incorrect Facts and Manifest Errors of Assessment):** Assesses whether the appraisal report was based on factual errors or manifest errors of assessment. The Court concluded that the reporting officers’ assessment of the applicant’s judgment was justified and consistent with the facts. \n* **Claim for Damages:** Addresses the applicant’s claim for material and non-material damage, which the Court rejected because it was closely associated with the unsuccessful claim for annulment. \n* **Costs:** Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the right to be heard and the assessment of factual errors and manifest errors of assessment in the appraisal report. The Court emphasized that the right to be heard requires that the person concerned has the opportunity to make known their views on matters that may be taken into account to their detriment. However, the Court also recognized the wide discretion enjoyed by reporting officers in appraising the work of officials, limiting judicial review to ensuring procedural regularity, proper application of the law, material accuracy of the facts, and absence of manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0566\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Group Pack sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Opposition proceedings \u2013 Application for EU figurative mark LUX 1991 \u2013 Earlier EU figurative mark LUX TOOLS \u2013 Relative ground for refusal \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.Case T-566\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The case revolves around an application by Group Pack sp. z o.o. for the figurative mark “LUX 1991” and an opposition filed by Obi Group Sourcing GmbH based on their earlier EU figurative mark “LUX TOOLS”. The court ultimately dismisses Group Pack’s action, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal, which found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the details of the trade mark application, the opposition, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It then presents the forms of order sought by the applicant (Group Pack) and the responses from the EUIPO and the intervener (Obi Group Sourcing). The core of the judgment lies in its legal analysis, where the court examines the applicant’s plea of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017\/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. The court assesses the relevant public, compares the goods and services covered by the marks, and conducts a detailed comparison of the marks themselves, considering their distinctive and dominant elements, as well as their visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity. Finally, the court provides a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and rules on the allocation of costs.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act for its use are: \n– **Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001**: This article is the core legal basis for the entire judgment, as it defines the conditions under which a trade mark application can be rejected due to the likelihood of confusion with an earlier trade mark. \n– **The court’s analysis of the distinctive and dominant elements of the marks**: This analysis is crucial for understanding how the court assesses the similarity between the marks and determines whether the relevant public is likely to be confused. \n– **The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion**: This section demonstrates how the court weighs all the relevant factors, including the similarity of the marks and the goods\/services, to reach a final conclusion on whether a likelihood of confusion exists.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0343\"><\/p>\n<h3>Arr\u00eat du Tribunal (cinqui\u00e8me chambre) du 1er octobre 2025.#Maria Albot contre Conseil de l’Union europ\u00e9enne.#Politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 commune \u2013 Mesures restrictives prises en raison des actions d\u00e9stabilisant la Moldavie \u2013 Gel des fonds \u2013 Restrictions en mati\u00e8re d\u2019admission sur le territoire des \u00c9tats membres \u2013 Listes des personnes, des entit\u00e9s et des organismes auxquels s\u2019applique le gel des fonds et des ressources \u00e9conomiques ou faisant l\u2019objet de restrictions en mati\u00e8re d\u2019admission sur le territoire des \u00c9tats membres \u2013 Maintien du nom du requ\u00e9rant sur les listes \u2013 Association \u00e0 des personnes inscrites sur les listes \u2013 Article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous b), et article 2, paragraphe 1, sous b), de la d\u00e9cision (PESC) 2023\/891 \u2013 Article 2, paragraphe 3, sous b), du r\u00e8glement (UE) 2023\/888 \u2013 Obligation de motivation \u2013 Exception d\u2019ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 \u2013 Erreur d\u2019appr\u00e9ciation \u2013 Libert\u00e9 d\u2019entreprise \u2013 Droit de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 \u2013 Libert\u00e9 d\u2019association \u2013 Libert\u00e9 d\u2019expression \u2013 Responsabilit\u00e9 non contractuelle.#Affaire T-343\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Maria Albot due to actions destabilizing Moldova.<\/p>\n**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe judgment concerns Maria Albot’s challenge to the Council of the European Union’s decisions to maintain her name on the lists of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) due to actions destabilizing Moldova. Albot argues that these measures lack legal basis, sufficient justification, and violate her fundamental rights. The General Court dismisses her claims, upholding the Council’s decisions.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Background:** Describes the context of the restrictive measures, the relevant EU decisions and regulations, and the reasons for including Albot on the lists. \n* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes Albot’s arguments for annulment and damages, and the Council’s counter-arguments. \n* **Legal Analysis:** \n * **Annulment Claims:** Examines Albot’s arguments regarding the legality of the Council’s decisions, including: \n * Alleged illegality of the underlying decisions and regulations establishing the restrictive measures regime. \n * Violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to state reasons. \n * Errors in assessment by the Council. \n * Violation of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. \n * **Damages Claims:** Assesses Albot’s claims for compensation for alleged reputational damage and financial loss. \n* **Decision:** Dismisses Albot’s claims and orders her to pay the costs.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\nThe judgment focuses on the application of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023\/891 and Council Regulation (EU) 2023\/888, which establish the framework for restrictive measures against individuals and entities destabilizing Moldova. The key provisions at issue are those that allow for the listing of individuals “associated” with those responsible for destabilizing actions.<\/p>\nThe judgment does not introduce new legislation or change existing laws. Instead, it interprets and applies existing EU law to the specific case of Maria Albot.<\/p>\n**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\nThe most important aspects of the judgment are:<\/p>\n* **Interpretation of “Association”:** The Court clarifies that the concept of “association” can encompass individuals linked by common interests, even if those interests are not explicitly stated. \n* **Evidentiary Standards:** The Court confirms that the Council has the burden of proving the grounds for listing, but it also acknowledges the Council’s broad discretion in assessing the evidence. \n* **Fundamental Rights:** The Court reaffirms that fundamental rights are not absolute and can be restricted in the pursuit of legitimate objectives, such as supporting democracy and the rule of law in a third country. \n* **Burden of Proof:** The court highlights that the applicant must provide solid evidence of the damage suffered to be able to claim damages.<\/p>\nThis judgment provides valuable guidance on the application of EU restrictive measures, particularly in the context of actions destabilizing third countries. It clarifies the scope of the “association” criterion and the evidentiary standards required to justify the listing of individuals.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1047\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025.AF v Council of the European Union.Civil service \u2013 Officials \u2013 Administrative investigation \u2013 Annex IX to the Staff Regulations \u2013 Disciplinary proceedings without consultation of the Disciplinary Board \u2013 Warning \u2013 Principle of impartiality \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2018\/1725 \u2013 Protection of personal data \u2013 Reimbursement of costs \u2013 Article 21 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations \u2013 Liability \u2013 Non-material damage.Case T-1047\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 October 2025 in Case T-1047\/23, AF v Council of the European Union.<\/p>\n**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe judgment concerns an action brought by an official, AF, against the Council of the European Union, seeking the annulment of a warning issued to her following an administrative investigation and the refusal to reimburse her legal costs. The official also sought compensation for non-material and material damage allegedly suffered as a result of these decisions. The General Court annulled both the warning and the decision refusing reimbursement of legal costs, and awarded the applicant compensation for non-material damage.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the factual circumstances leading to the action, including the administrative investigation into the applicant’s alleged unauthorized access and disclosure of a colleague’s personal data. \n* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s claims, including annulment of the contested decisions, reimbursement of legal costs, and compensation for damages. \n* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and the court’s reasoning. \n * **Claim for Annulment of the First Contested Decision (Warning):** The court upholds the applicant’s claim that the administrative investigation was not conducted impartially, violating Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and relevant Council decisions. The court found a legitimate doubt as to the objective impartiality of the investigation due to the roles and responsibilities of the investigators and the appointing authority regarding data protection, as well as the fact that the investigators were the applicant’s direct colleagues. \n * **Claim for Annulment of the Second Contested Decision (Refusal of Reimbursement):** The court annuls the decision refusing reimbursement of legal costs, holding that Article 21 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations applies to all disciplinary proceedings, not just those involving the Disciplinary Board. \n * **Claim for Payment of Costs Incurred in Disciplinary Proceedings:** The court orders the Council to pay the applicant’s legal costs of EUR 2,413.95, plus default interest. \n * **Claim for Damages:** The court rejects the claim for material damages but awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in compensation for non-material damage related to the deterioration of her health as a result of the flawed investigation procedure. \n* **Costs:** The Council, as the unsuccessful party, is ordered to pay the costs.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions Important for Use:**<\/p>\n1. **Impartiality of Administrative Investigations:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of impartiality in administrative investigations, particularly concerning potential conflicts of interest and the need to avoid even the appearance of bias. \n2. **Reimbursement of Legal Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings:** The judgment clarifies that Article 21 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, concerning the reimbursement of legal costs, applies to all disciplinary proceedings, regardless of whether the Disciplinary Board is consulted. \n3. **Compensation for Non-Material Damage:** The judgment acknowledges that the annulment of an unlawful act may not always be sufficient compensation for non-material damage, especially when the act has a significant impact on the individual’s health or reputation. \n4. **Conditions for liability:** The judgment recalls conditions for an action for compensation to be successful.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1191\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Fincantieri NexTech SpA v European Commission.Award of grants in the field of defence \u2013 EDF \u2013 Funding of research actions \u2013 Call for proposals EDF\u20112022-RA \u2013 Rejection of the applicant\u2019s proposal \u2013 Manifest error of assessment.Case T-1191\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a case brought by Fincantieri NexTech SpA against the European Commission. The case concerns the rejection of Fincantieri’s project proposal for funding under the European Defence Fund (EDF). The court examines whether the Commission made errors in its assessment of the proposal, specifically regarding the criteria for awarding grants.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment includes an overview of the background to the dispute, the arguments presented by Fincantieri, and the court’s legal analysis. Fincantieri claimed that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in evaluating its proposal and infringed Article 12 of the EDF Regulation. The court addresses each of these claims, examining the specific award criteria and the Commission’s reasoning for rejecting the proposal. The court assesses whether the Commission’s evaluation was implausible or contradictory.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment revolve around the court’s interpretation of the EDF Regulation and the Commission’s discretion in awarding grants. The court emphasizes that the Commission has a wide discretion in this area and that judicial review is limited to verifying procedural rules, factual accuracy, and manifest errors of assessment. The court finds that Fincantieri failed to demonstrate that the Commission’s assessment was implausible or contradictory, and therefore dismisses the action.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ1175\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Siemens Healthineers AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 EU word mark teamplay \u2013 Earlier national word mark TEAMPLAY \u2013 Relative ground for invalidity \u2013 Genuine use of the earlier mark \u2013 Article 57(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009 \u2013 Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207\/2009 \u2013 Independent subcategory of goods and services \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Similarity between the goods and services \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207\/2009.Case T-1175\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis judgment from the General Court addresses a dispute over the validity of the EU trade mark “teamplay” held by Siemens Healthineers AG. The case was brought by Sunware s. r. o., who sought to invalidate the EU mark based on their earlier Czech national mark “TEAMPLAY”. The core issue revolves around whether the use of Sunware’s earlier mark was genuine and whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment involves an examination of several pleas raised by Siemens Healthineers AG against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). These pleas include alleged infringements of procedural rules, genuine use of the earlier mark, and the likelihood of confusion. The court systematically addresses each plea, providing detailed reasoning for its conclusions.<\/p>\nThe key provisions of the judgment concern the interpretation and application of Article 57(5) and Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207\/2009 (now replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), which deal with the genuine use of a trade mark, and Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of the same regulation, concerning the likelihood of confusion. The court delves into what constitutes “genuine use” and how to assess the similarity of goods and services for the purpose of determining the likelihood of confusion. The judgment clarifies that “information system software” can be considered an independent subcategory of “computer software” and provides guidance on assessing the extent of genuine use based on factors like the nature of the products, market characteristics, and frequency of use.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62020TJ0384(01)\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2025.OC v European Commission.Non-contractual liability \u2013 OLAF investigation \u2013 Press release \u2013 Processing of personal data \u2013 Presumption of innocence \u2013 Principle of good administration \u2013 Duty to act diligently \u2013 Confidentiality of OLAF investigations \u2013 Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals \u2013 Causal link \u2013 Damage.Case T-384\/20 RENV.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a non-contractual liability claim against the European Commission. The case revolves around a press release issued by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning an investigation into potential irregularities in a research project funded by the EU. The applicant, OC, claims that the press release unlawfully processed her personal data, violated the presumption of innocence, and infringed the principles of good administration, causing her damage.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Background:** Details the facts leading to the dispute, including the research project, OLAF’s investigation, and the publication of the press release. \n* **Annulled Judgment:** Summarizes the initial decision of the General Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim. \n* **Judgment on Appeal:** Explains the Court of Justice’s decision to overturn the General Court’s initial judgment on certain grounds and refer the case back to the General Court. \n* **Forms of Order Sought:** Outlines the applicant’s request for compensation and the Commission’s request for dismissal of the action. \n* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis. \n * It examines whether the conditions for the EU to incur non-contractual liability are met: unlawfulness of conduct, actual damage, and a causal link between the conduct and the damage. \n * It assesses the alleged infringements of EU law, including violations of Regulation 2018\/1725 (data protection), the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the right to good administration. \n * It analyzes whether OLAF’s conduct was unlawful and, if so, whether the breach was sufficiently serious. \n * It examines the damage alleged by the applicant and whether there is a causal link between OLAF’s conduct and the damage. \n* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings. \n* **Operative part:** The final decision of the General Court.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\nThe judgment focuses on whether OLAF’s press release violated the applicant’s rights and caused her damage. The Court found that OLAF unlawfully processed the applicant’s personal data by including details that were not necessary to inform the public about the investigation. It also found that OLAF breached the principle of the presumption of innocence by using the term “fraud” in the press release, which implied guilt. Furthermore, the Court concluded that OLAF failed to act diligently and impartially by disclosing inaccurate information and presenting the investigation’s findings in a biased manner.<\/p>\nCompared to the initial judgment, this decision takes into account the Court of Justice’s findings on appeal, which overturned the General Court’s earlier conclusions on the identifiability of the applicant and the applicability of data protection rules.<\/p>\n**Most Important Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment are those relating to:<\/p>\n* **Unlawful processing of personal data:** The Court’s finding that OLAF violated data protection rules by including unnecessary personal details in the press release. \n* **Breach of the presumption of innocence:** The Court’s conclusion that OLAF’s use of the term “fraud” implied guilt and violated the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent. \n* **Breach of the duty to act diligently and impartially:** The Court’s finding that OLAF disclosed inaccurate information and presented the investigation’s findings in a biased manner. \n* **Causal link and damage:** The Court’s analysis of the causal link between OLAF’s conduct and the damage suffered by the applicant, including damage to her reputation, professional career, and health.<\/p>\nUltimately, the Court ordered the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 50,000 in compensation for the damage she suffered as a result of OLAF’s actions.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0370\"><\/p>\n<h3>Arr\u00eat du Tribunal (dixi\u00e8me chambre) du 1er octobre 2025.#EP contre Parlement europ\u00e9en.#Fonction publique \u2013 Fonctionnaires \u2013 Nomination d\u2019un fonctionnaire en tant que chef d\u2019unit\u00e9 \u2013 Rapport d\u2019\u00e9valuation d\u00e9favorable \u2013 D\u00e9cision de non-confirmation dans les fonctions de chef d\u2019unit\u00e9 \u2013 D\u00e9cision de transfert \u00e0 un poste n\u2019impliquant pas de responsabilit\u00e9s manag\u00e9riales \u2013 Devoir de sollicitude \u2013 Responsabilit\u00e9 \u2013 Pr\u00e9judice moral.#Affaire T-370\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute between an EP, a Parliament official, and the European Parliament concerning her non-confirmation as Head of Unit and subsequent transfer. The official contests the decision not to confirm her in the position of Head of Unit, as well as the decision to transfer her to a post without managerial responsibilities, claiming a violation of the duty of care and seeking compensation for the moral prejudice suffered.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Facts**: It outlines the factual background, including EP’s employment history at the Parliament, her selection for the Head of Unit position, the confirmation period, and the unfavorable evaluation report that led to the non-confirmation and transfer decisions. \n2. **Conclusions of the parties**: It summarizes the claims of EP, who seeks the annulment of the decisions and compensation for moral damages, and the Parliament, which requests the rejection of EP’s claims. \n3. **Law**: This section contains the legal reasoning of the Court. \n * It examines the claim for annulment, focusing on the decision of non-confirmation. \n * It assesses the arguments related to the violation of the duty of care, highlighting the internal rules governing the evaluation of officials in management positions. \n * The Court finds that the Parliament did not comply with the internal rules regarding the timeline for communicating difficulties to the official, thus violating the duty of care. \n * It analyzes the decision of transfer, addressing the admissibility of the claim and whether the decision caused harm. \n * The Court concludes that the decision of transfer is closely linked to the decision of non-confirmation and, therefore, must also be annulled. \n * Finally, the Court examines the claim for compensation, finding that the alleged damages are either hypothetical or not sufficiently demonstrated. \n4. **Decision**: The Court annuls the decisions of non-confirmation and transfer but rejects the claim for compensation. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act are those concerning the **duty of care** and the **internal rules for evaluating officials in management positions**. The Court emphasizes that the Parliament must respect its internal rules, especially when they aim to protect its employees. The judgment highlights the importance of providing officials with timely feedback and the opportunity to improve their performance during the confirmation period. The Court also clarifies that a transfer decision can be challenged if it affects an official’s career prospects, even if it does not result in a loss of rank or financial benefits.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0651\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2025.Eti G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 EU figurative mark Poof!\u2026and done \u2013 Earlier EU and national figurative marks ETI PUF \u2013 Relative grounds for invalidity \u2013 No likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001 \u2013 No damage to reputation \u2013 Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017\/1001.Case T-651\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the judgment of the General Court regarding a dispute between Eti G\u0131da Sanayi ve Ticaret A\u015e (Eti), a Turkish company, and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with Dr. Oetker RO SRL (Oetker), a Romanian company, as an intervener. Eti sought to annul the decision of the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal, which had dismissed Eti’s appeal against the Cancellation Division’s decision to reject Eti’s application for a declaration of invalidity of Oetker’s EU trade mark “Poof!\u2026and done”. Eti argued that Oetker’s mark should be invalidated due to the likelihood of confusion with Eti’s earlier EU and national trade marks “ETI PUF”.<\/p>\nThe General Court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks and no damage to the reputation of Eti’s earlier marks. The court considered the relevant public, the similarity of the goods and services, and the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks. It concluded that the differences between the marks were significant enough to prevent confusion among consumers.<\/p>\nThe key points of the judgment are the assessment of the similarity of the marks, focusing on both word and figurative elements, and the determination that the marks are visually and conceptually dissimilar enough to avoid confusion. The court also emphasized that Eti failed to prove that its earlier marks had a reputation that could be damaged by Oetker’s mark. The court also clarifies the criteria for assessing the admissibility of claims against EUIPO decisions, emphasizing that the focus should be on the Board of Appeal’s decision rather than the Cancellation Division’s.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023TJ0600\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 October 2025.Bundesnetzagentur f\u00fcr Elektrizit\u00e4t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (BNetzA) v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.Energy \u2013 Internal market for electricity \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2015\/1222 \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2019\/943 \u2013 Allocation of cross-zonal capacity between bidding zones and congestion management \u2013 Determination of common regional methodologies for the calculation of daily and intraday capacity \u2013 Proposals from the transmission system operators of the \u2018Core\u2019 capacity calculation region \u2013 Internal critical network elements \u2013 Economic efficiency \u2013 Power transfer distribution factor (PTDF) \u2013 Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER.Case T-600\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over the allocation of cross-zonal capacity in the internal electricity market. The case revolves around a decision by the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) concerning methodologies for calculating daily and intraday capacity in the “Core” capacity calculation region. The Bundesnetzagentur f\u00fcr Elektrizit\u00e4t, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen (BNetzA) and the Federal Republic of Germany challenged ACER’s decision, arguing that it imposed unlawful restrictions on the inclusion of internal network elements in capacity calculations.<\/p>\nThe judgment focuses on the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015\/1222 and Regulation (EU) 2019\/943, which govern capacity allocation and congestion management in the electricity sector. The court examines whether ACER’s decision, specifically regarding Article 5(8)(b) and (c) and Article 5(9) of the methodologies at issue, correctly interprets these regulations. These articles impose requirements on transmission system operators (TSOs) to conduct impact assessments and economic efficiency analyses before including internal network elements in capacity calculations. The court ultimately annuls part of ACER’s decision, finding that these requirements go beyond what is permitted by the regulations.<\/p>\nThe key provision at stake is Article 5(8) of the methodologies, which requires TSOs to provide an impact assessment of increasing the threshold for inclusion of internal critical network elements (CNEs) to 10% or higher, as well as an analysis demonstrating that including the element in capacity calculation is economically the most efficient solution. The court found that these requirements impose obligations on TSOs that go beyond the mere communication of a list of internal CNEs and are not in line with the regulations. The court’s decision emphasizes that internal network elements significantly influenced by cross-zonal exchanges should be included in capacity calculations without additional economic efficiency hurdles.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:22025X01998\"><\/p>\n<h3>Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports [2025\/1998]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Official Journal notice announces the entry into force date of the amending Agreement between the European Union and Brazil regarding short-stay visa waivers for ordinary passport holders. The amending agreement modifies the original agreement to potentially update or clarify its terms. The key information is that the agreement will come into effect on March 1, 2026.<\/p>\nThe structure of this document is very simple: it is a single announcement. It states that the internal procedures for ratification were completed on September 9, 2025, paving the way for the entry into force on the specified date. There are no specific provisions outlined in this notice, as it solely concerns the effective date of the amending agreement.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is the date of entry into force: March 1, 2026. This is the date from which the changes introduced by the amending agreement will be applicable, impacting travel between the EU and Brazil for ordinary passport holders.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Legal Acts Review Review of EU Legal Acts Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/1960: Harmonized Guarantees This regulation aims to empower consumers by standardizing information on product guarantees. It mandates a harmonized notice explaining the legal guarantee of conformity\u2014your basic consumer rights if a product doesn’t work as expected. Additionally, it introduces a voluntary harmonized label…<\/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-12275","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\/12275","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=12275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}