Legal Act Review<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h4>Review of Legal Acts<\/h4>\n<h5>Case C-491\/17, *Airbnb Ireland*, 2025<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the term “traveller” under Directive 2015\/2302\/EU includes legal persons, such as non-profit associations booking travel for their members. This ensures that such associations can claim refunds and protections under the Directive, safeguarding the rights of individual travellers represented.<\/p>\n<h5>Case C-197\/24, *\u0160i\u013earsk\u00fd*, 2025<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the concepts of “undertaking” and “consumer” under Directive 2011\/7\/EU and Directive 93\/13\/EEC. It ruled that a natural person hiring a lawyer to set up a company is not automatically an “undertaking” and can be a “consumer” if not already engaged in related economic activity at the time of contracting.<\/p>\n<h5>European Delegated Prosecutor Appointment Dispute<\/h5>\n<p>The Court decision addressed the rejection of a candidate for the position of European Delegated Prosecutor. The Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible due to the expiration of the appeal deadline and the confirmatory nature of the EPPO’s subsequent decisions.<\/p>\n<h5>Madeira Free Zone State Aid Dispute<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice dismissed an appeal concerning State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone. The Court found no error in interpreting the conditions for granting tax advantages, particularly regarding the origin of profits and job creation, and upheld the previous ruling.<\/p>\n<h5>Family Foundations and Gift Tax (EEA Agreement)<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice ruled on the compatibility of a German tax law with the EEA Agreement. The court stated that the tax law doesn’t violate Article 40 of the EEA Agreement, as long as the difference in tax treatment is proportionate.<\/p>\n<h5>Inteligo Media and Data Protection<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarified the conditions for sending unsolicited marketing emails under the ePrivacy Directive and GDPR. It defined “direct marketing” broadly, confirmed that obtaining an email during free account creation can be “in the context of the sale of a service,” and clarified the relationship between the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR regarding consent requirements.<\/p>\n<h5>Directive 2016\/801 and Sufficient Resources for Voluntary Service<\/h5>\n<p>The Court clarified that Member States cannot impose extra requirements about the kind of resources a third-country national needs to show to prove they have enough money to live on under Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2016\/801.<\/p>\n<h5>European Commission v Spain, Case C-250\/24<\/h5>\n<p>The Court rejected the European Commission’s claim that Spain failed to ensure the management independence of railway infrastructure managers (ADIF and ADIF-Alta Velocidad) and railway undertakings (Renfe), finding that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated a failure to comply with Directive 2012\/34\/EU.<\/p>\n<h5>State aid in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). Case of Sonasurf Internacional<\/h5>\n<p>The Court upheld the General Court’s decision in the case concerning State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone, stating that the General Court did not err in its assessment that the Commission’s decision did not impose a specific methodology (ETP and UTA) for calculating job creation.<\/p>\n<h5>State aid in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). Case of AFG SA<\/h5>\n<p>The Court dismissed the AFG SA\u2019s appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision and confirming the Commission’s power to order the recovery of illegal and incompatible aid.<\/p>\n<h5>FLO VENEER and VAT Exemption<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarified that tax authorities must assess all evidence presented for VAT exemptions on intra-Community supplies, even if the specific evidence outlined in Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011 is not provided.<\/p>\n<h5>Compensation for Romanian Judges\u2019 Overtime Work<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarified conditions under which Member States can limit financial compensation for judges’ overtime work. Any derogating measure must be provided for by law and justified by an objective in the general interest, such as eliminating an excessive government deficit. The measure must be proportionate and the judge must be able to actually use the compensatory rest period.<\/p>\n<h5>Regulation (EU) 2019\/787 and “Non-Alcoholic Gin”<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU decided that Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019\/787 prohibits the use of the name “non-alcoholic gin” for beverages that do not meet the requirements for gin, and that this prohibition is valid and does not infringe upon the freedom to conduct a business.<\/p>\n<h5>Regulation (EU) No 995\/2010 (EU Timber Regulation – EUTR)<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU ruled that it is not sufficient for an operator to merely have access to a DDS maintained by its parent company; it must have its own DDS. The operator itself must actively use, maintain, and evaluate the DDS, unless it is using a DDS established by a monitoring organization.<\/p>\n<h5>BNP Paribas Public Sector SA vs. SRB (Single Resolution Board)<\/h5>\n<p>The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the SRB’s position that the collateral backing irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) can be returned only after the corresponding cash amounts are paid, ensuring the SRF’s financial stability and equal treatment among institutions.<\/p>\n<h5>Worker Safety at Hospitals in Romania. Case concerning application of Directive 89\/391\/EEC<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarifies that Directive 89\/391 aims to improve the safety and health of workers but does not require Member States to classify workplaces based on health risks to provide additional pension and annual leave rights.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Case E-19\/24<\/h5>\n<p>EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 concerning the format of applications for registration and extension of registration as trade repositories into its national legal order.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court ruling regarding Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022\/750<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022\/750, which concerns benchmarks in Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivative contracts, into its legal system.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Case E-15\/24 (Iceland\/Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314)<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland did not incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, which pertains to risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral, into its legal framework.<\/p>\n<h5>Norway State Aid Compensation Scheme<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Surveillance Authority decided not to raise objections to Norway’s compensation scheme for rail freight operators who suffered losses due to the Otta bridge closure. The aid is provided in the form of grants, covering 95% of the losses.<\/p>\n<h5>Greenhouse Gas Emissions Case at EFTA Court<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court clarified that greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas are effects needing assessment under the EIA Directive. The judgment emphasizes the obligations of national courts to rectify failures in conducting thorough environmental impact assessments.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on Norwegian state aid scheme<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Surveillance Authority decided not to raise objections to amendments made to Norway’s innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media. The scheme supports innovation and development of editorial content, including increased content consumption, with aid intensities of 40% or 75%.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on Appointment of New Hearing Officer<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Surveillance Authority appointed Johanne F\u00f8rde as the new Hearing Officer, replacing Michael S\u00e1nchez Rydelski, to ensure continued impartial oversight in competition proceedings within the EFTA framework.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502003\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2003 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of dual-use items<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502295\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2295 of 13\u00a0November 2025 setting out the list and description of variables and their technical specifications, statistical classifications, breakdowns, metadata and precision targets for the topics job vacancies, labour cost index and gender pay gap pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02025\/941 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502288\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2288 of 13\u00a0November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/1044 as regards a major change to the Union authorisation of the single biocidal product Pesguard\u00ae Gel in accordance with Regulation (EU) No\u00a0528\/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502215\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2215 of 31\u00a0October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/964 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family SOPUROXID<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2327\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2327 of 12\u00a0November 2025 amending for the 353rd time Council Regulation (EC) No\u00a0881\/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2287\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2287 of 12\u00a0November 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of adipic acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2272\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2272 of 12\u00a0November 2025 renewing the approval of the active substance gibberellins as a low-risk active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No\u00a01107\/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No\u00a0540\/2011<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2269\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Regulation (EU) 2025\/2269 of 12\u00a0November 2025 correcting Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/1616 as regards labelling of recycled plastic, the development of recycling technologies and the transfer of authorisations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2274\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Regulation (EU) 2025\/2274 of 12\u00a0November 2025 amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1487 as regards the adoption of the work programme for the gradual review of safeners and synergists<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0779\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (sixi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Samer Kamal Al-Assad contre Conseil de l’Union europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 commune \u2013 Mesures restrictives prises \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de la Syrie \u2013 D\u00e9cision 2013\/255\/PESC \u2013 R\u00e8glement (UE) no 36\/2012 \u2013 Gel des fonds et des ressources \u00e9conomiques \u2013 Inscription du nom du requ\u00e9rant sur les listes des personnes, des entit\u00e9s et des organismes concern\u00e9s \u2013 Crit\u00e8re de l\u2019appartenance familiale.#Affaire C-779\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0632\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 State aid \u2013 Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market \u2013 Second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU \u2013 Forest land swap transactions \u2013 Obligation to recover \u2013 Obligation to provide information \u2013 Failure to comply.Case C-632\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0499\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2025.European Commission v Hungary.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Free movement of goods \u2013 Article 35 TFEU \u2013 Quantitative restrictions on exports \u2013 Measures having equivalent effect \u2013 Construction materials \u2013 Obligation to notify exports \u2013 State\u2019s right of pre-emption \u2013 Article 36 TFEU \u2013 Justification \u2013 Public security \u2013 Supply of construction materials for critical infrastructure \u2013 Control of exports to third countries \u2013 Exclusive competence of the Union \u2013 Common commercial policy \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2015\/479 \u2013 Common rules for exports \u2013 Directive (EU) 2015\/1535 \u2013 Information procedure in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services.Case C-499\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0803\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Bourbon Offshore Interoil Shipping – Navega\u00e7\u00e3o, Lda contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-803\/23 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0445\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.MS Amlin Insurance SE v (W)onderweg VZW.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Approximation of laws \u2013 Directive (EU) 2015\/2302 \u2013 Package travel and linked travel arrangements \u2013 Article 3(6) \u2013 Concept of \u2018traveller\u2019 \u2013 Legal person who has concluded a travel contract for its members.Case C-445\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the term “traveller” in the context of the Package Travel Directive (Directive 2015\/2302\/EU). The case revolves around a non-profit association that booked a trip for its members and sought a refund from an insurance company after the travel agency went bankrupt. The CJEU clarifies whether a legal person, like the non-profit association, can be considered a “traveller” under the Directive.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows: It starts with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the parties involved. It then presents the legal context, including relevant articles from Directive 90\/314\/EEC and Directive 2015\/2302\/EU, as well as the relevant Belgian law. Following this, it details the dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred to the CJEU by the national court. The core of the judgment is the “Consideration of the question referred,” where the CJEU analyzes the meaning of “traveller” in Article 3(6) of Directive 2015\/2302\/EU. Finally, it concludes with the ruling and a note on costs.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision clarified is Article 3(6) of Directive 2015\/2302\/EU. The CJEU concludes that the term “traveller” includes legal persons, such as non-profit associations, that conclude package travel contracts with an organiser in their own name but on behalf of their members. This interpretation ensures that these associations can claim refunds and other protections under the Directive, safeguarding the rights of the individual travellers they represent. This is a new interpretation, because previously it was not clear whether the term “traveller” includes legal persons.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0197\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.AK v RU.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Directive 2011\/7\/EU \u2013 Combating late payment in commercial transactions \u2013 Scope \u2013 Article 2(1) and (3) \u2013 Concept of \u2018undertaking\u2019 \u2013 Concept of \u2018commercial transaction\u2019 \u2013 Contract for the provision of legal services with a view to setting up a commercial company \u2013 Directive 93\/13\/EEC \u2013 Article 2(b) \u2013 Concept of \u2018consumer\u2019 \u2013 Natural person who engaged the services of a lawyer with a view to setting up a commercial company.Case C-197\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) in Case C-197\/24, *\u0160i\u013earsk\u00fd*, delivered on 13 November 2025. The judgment addresses a request for a preliminary ruling from a Slovak court regarding the interpretation of Directive 2011\/7\/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions and Directive 93\/13\/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The case concerns a dispute between a legal services company (AK) and a natural person (RU) regarding payment for legal services related to setting up a commercial company.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies the concepts of “undertaking” and “commercial transaction” under Directive 2011\/7\/EU, as well as the concept of “consumer” under Directive 93\/13\/EEC. The Court rules that a natural person who hires a lawyer to set up a company, where that person will be a co-founder, member, and managing director, is not automatically considered an “undertaking.” The Court also clarifies that such a person can be considered a “consumer” if, at the time of contracting for legal services, they were not already engaged in an independent economic or professional activity related to that contract.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the directives in question and the nature of the dispute.<br \/>\n2. **Legal Context:** Summarizes the relevant articles of Directive 2011\/7\/EU and Directive 93\/13\/EEC.<br \/>\n3. **Slovak Law:** Details the relevant provisions of Slovak law, including the Commercial Code, Civil Code, and Law on the Profession of Lawyer.<br \/>\n4. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Describes the factual background of the case and the questions posed by the Slovak court.<br \/>\n5. **Consideration of the Questions Referred:**<br \/>\n * **The First Question:** Addresses whether a natural person seeking legal services to found a company should be considered an “undertaking.” The Court concludes that this status is not automatic.<br \/>\n * **The Second Question:** Clarifies whether such a natural person can be considered a “consumer.” The Court concludes that they can be, if they were not engaged in a related economic activity at the time of contracting.<br \/>\n6. **Costs:** Allocates costs according to standard procedure.<br \/>\n7. **Operative Part:** Summarizes the Court’s rulings on the questions referred.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions clarified are:<br \/>\n* **Article 2(1) and (3) of Directive 2011\/7\/EU:** Defines “commercial transactions” and “undertaking.” The Court emphasizes that a person must be acting in the course of an existing independent economic or professional activity to be considered an “undertaking.”<br \/>\n* **Article 2(b) of Directive 93\/13\/EEC:** Defines “consumer.” The Court confirms that the definition is based on whether the person is acting outside their trade, business, or profession at the time of the contract.<\/p>\n<p>This judgment provides important clarification on the scope of Directive 2011\/7\/EU and Directive 93\/13\/EEC, particularly regarding the definitions of “undertaking” and “consumer” in the context of legal services for setting up a company. It emphasizes that the status of a party must be assessed at the time the contract is concluded and that the intention to engage in commercial activity in the future does not automatically qualify a person as an “undertaking.”<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0352\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (dixi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#PU contre Parquet europ\u00e9en.#Pourvoi \u2013 Fonction publique \u2013 Parquet europ\u00e9en \u2013 R\u00e8glement (UE) 2017\/1939 \u2013 Article 17 \u2013 Procureurs europ\u00e9ens d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s \u2013 Proc\u00e9dure de recrutement \u2013 Refus de nomination d\u2019un candidat d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par un \u00c9tat membre \u2013 Recours en annulation \u2013 Article 263 TFUE \u2013 Recevabilit\u00e9 \u2013 D\u00e9lais de recours \u2013 Recours tardif \u2013 D\u00e9cision confirmative \u2013 Absence d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments nouveaux substantiels \u2013 Obligation de motivation.#Affaire C-352\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Court decision concerns a dispute over the rejection of a candidate for the position of European Delegated Prosecutor within the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The core issue revolves around the admissibility of an appeal against the EPPO’s decision not to appoint the candidate, specifically addressing whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limits and whether subsequent decisions by the EPPO constituted new and substantial elements that would justify a new appeal period.<\/p>\n<p>The structure of the act is as follows:<br \/>\n1. **Background:** The decision outlines the legal framework, including the Statute of EU officials and Regulation (EU) 2017\/1939 establishing the EPPO. It details the process for appointing and rejecting European Delegated Prosecutors.<br \/>\n2. **Facts of the Case:** It describes the candidate’s application, the EPPO’s initial rejection, the subsequent complaint filed by the candidate, and the EPPO’s final decision to reject the complaint.<br \/>\n3. **Tribunal Decision:** It summarizes the General Court’s decision to dismiss the candidate’s appeal as inadmissible due to the expiration of the appeal deadline and the confirmatory nature of the EPPO’s subsequent decisions.<br \/>\n4. **Appeal to the Court of Justice:** It presents the candidate’s arguments on appeal, claiming errors in the General Court’s interpretation of the law and insufficient reasoning.<br \/>\n5. **Court of Justice Analysis:** It analyzes the candidate’s arguments, focusing on whether the EPPO’s decisions contained new and substantial elements that would justify a new appeal period. The Court upholds the General Court’s decision, finding that the candidate’s appeal was indeed inadmissible.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 263 TFEU:** This article establishes the time limits for bringing an action for annulment before the Court of Justice. The Court emphasizes that failure to comply with these deadlines renders the contested act definitive.<br \/>\n* **Regulation (EU) 2017\/1939, Article 17:** This article outlines the criteria for appointing European Delegated Prosecutors and allows the EPPO to reject candidates who do not meet these criteria. The Court’s decision clarifies that the EPPO’s rejection of the candidate was based on a substantive assessment of these criteria.<br \/>\n* **Concept of “New and Substantial Elements”:** The Court reiterates its established case law that only the existence of new and substantial elements can justify the re-examination of a decision that has become final. The Court clarifies that the EPPO’s subsequent decisions did not contain such elements.<br \/>\n* **Right to Effective Judicial Protection:** The candidate argued that the General Court’s interpretation of the law violated his right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court rejects this argument, finding that the candidate’s failure to comply with the appeal deadlines was not a result of any error on the part of the General Court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0806\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Renco Valore SpA e.a. contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-806\/23 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (seventh chamber) regarding a dispute over State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). The case concerns the annulment of a decision by the European Commission concerning a scheme of tax advantages granted to companies in the Madeira Free Zone. The Commission considered that Portugal had implemented the aid scheme in violation of previous decisions, making it incompatible with the internal market.<\/p>\n<p>The structure of the judgment includes an overview of the appeal, the background of the dispute, the procedure before the General Court, the arguments of the parties, and the Court of Justice’s assessment. The Court examines three pleas raised by the appellants: (1) an error in interpreting the condition relating to the origin of profits subject to IRPM reduction, (2) an error in interpreting the condition relating to job creation or maintenance, and (3) a violation of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. The Court dismisses all three pleas, finding some inadmissible and others unfounded.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the judgment relate to the interpretation of the conditions for granting tax advantages in the Madeira Free Zone, particularly concerning the requirement that activities be “effectively and materially carried out in Madeira” and the creation or maintenance of jobs. The Court clarifies that the tax advantages are intended to compensate for the additional costs faced by companies in the Madeira Free Zone due to the region’s disadvantages. The judgment also emphasizes that Member States do not have complete discretion in interpreting the conditions for granting aid and that beneficiaries of aid implemented without prior notification cannot have legitimate expectations about its regularity.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0142\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.Familienstiftung v Finanzamt K\u00f6ln-West.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Free movement of capital \u2013 Inheritance and gift tax \u2013 Taxation of the inter vivos transfer of assets in order to set up a foundation \u2013 Family foundation with its seat in Liechtenstein \u2013 Coherence of the tax system.Case C-142\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The case revolves around a German tax law that treats family foundations located in Germany differently from those located in other EEA countries, specifically Liechtenstein, regarding gift tax. The CJEU was asked whether this difference in tax treatment is compatible with the free movement of capital as guaranteed by the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the parties involved. It then details the legal context, including relevant articles from the EEA Agreement, Directive 88\/361, and the German Law on inheritance tax and gift tax (ErbStG). The judgment describes the dispute in the main proceedings, which involves a family foundation in Liechtenstein contesting the gift tax imposed by the German tax authority. Finally, the court provides its consideration of the question referred and the ruling.<\/p>\n<p>The key provision at the heart of the judgment is Article 40 of the EEA Agreement, which prohibits restrictions on the movement of capital between contracting parties. The German tax law (ErbStG) distinguishes between family foundations established in Germany and those established abroad, particularly concerning the applicable tax class and allowances for gift tax purposes. German foundations benefit from a more favorable tax treatment because they are subject to a substitute inheritance tax levied every 30 years. The Court found that this difference in treatment constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital but may be justified to ensure the coherence of the tax system, provided it adheres to the principle of proportionality.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this judgment is its clarification on the balance between the free movement of capital within the EEA and the right of member states to maintain the coherence of their tax systems. The CJEU concluded that Germany’s tax law does not violate Article 40 of the EEA Agreement as long as the difference in tax treatment is proportionate. This means that the tax advantage given to domestic foundations must be offset by the substitute inheritance tax they are subject to, and the overall tax burden should not be disproportionately higher for foreign foundations.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0654\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Na\u0163ional\u0103 de Supraveghere a Prelucr\u0103rii Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP).Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector \u2013 Directive 2002\/58\/EC \u2013 Article 13(1) and (2) \u2013 Unsolicited communications \u2013 Concept of communication \u2018for the purposes of direct marketing\u2019 \u2013 Obtaining electronic contact details \u2018in the context of the sale of a product or a service\u2019 \u2013 Registration on an online platform giving access to additional content \u2013 Sending of a daily newsletter via email \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2016\/679 \u2013 Article 6 \u2013 Lawfulness of processing \u2013 Article 95 \u2013 Relationship with Directive 2002\/58.Case C-654\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002\/58\/EC) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2016\/679). The case concerns a Romanian company, Inteligo Media, which was fined for processing customer data without consent when sending a daily newsletter. The Romanian court asked the CJEU for clarification on several aspects of EU data protection law.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a company can send unsolicited marketing emails to its customers. It specifies what constitutes “direct marketing” and when an email address is obtained “in the context of the sale of a product or a service.” The Court also addresses the relationship between the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, particularly regarding consent requirements and the powers of national supervisory authorities.<\/p>\n<p>Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:<\/p>\n<p>* **Direct Marketing:** The Court defines “direct marketing” broadly, including emails that promote the exhaustion of free content and encourage users to purchase a full subscription.<br \/>\n* **Context of Sale:** Obtaining an email address when a user creates a free account to access some free content and the possibility of paid content is considered “in the context of the sale of a service,” even if the user initially only accesses the free content.<br \/>\n* **ePrivacy vs. GDPR:** If the conditions of the ePrivacy Directive for sending marketing emails are met, the stricter consent requirements of the GDPR do not apply.<br \/>\n* **National Law:** The Court declined to rule on whether the Romanian law correctly transposed the concept of “direct marketing” from the ePrivacy Directive.<br \/>\n* **Supervisory Authority Obligations:** The Court did not answer the question regarding the obligations of a supervisory authority when imposing fines under the GDPR.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0525\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.OS v Orsz\u00e1gos Idegenrend\u00e9szeti F\u0151igazgat\u00f3s\u00e1g.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Immigration policy \u2013 Directive (EU) 2016\/801 \u2013 Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of voluntary service \u2013 Refusal to renew a residence permit \u2013 Article 7(1)(e) \u2013 Sufficient resources \u2013 Supplementary conditions arising from the case-law of a national supreme court \u2013 Evidence \u2013 Principle of the primacy of EU law.Case C-525\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2016\/801, which concerns the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for purposes including voluntary service. The case specifically addresses the requirements for proving sufficient resources to obtain or renew a residence permit for voluntary service in Hungary. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which Member States can impose additional conditions beyond those explicitly stated in the Directive, particularly concerning the nature and origin of financial resources.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the relevant parties. It then details the legal context, citing relevant articles from EU directives (2003\/109\/EC, 2004\/38\/EC, and 2016\/801) and Hungarian national law. The judgment describes the factual background of the case, the questions referred by the Hungarian court, and the CJEU’s analysis of these questions. The CJEU considers the admissibility of the questions, then addresses the substance, interpreting Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2016\/801 and the principle of primacy of EU law. Finally, the court provides a ruling and addresses the matter of costs.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions clarified by the CJEU are those related to Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2016\/801. The Court rules that Member States cannot add extra requirements about the kind of resources a third-country national needs to show to prove they have enough money to live on. Specifically, a country can’t demand that the money be classified as income or assets, or that the person prove they own it permanently and without restrictions. The Court also emphasizes that if a national court’s previous rulings conflict with this interpretation of EU law, the national court must follow EU law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0250\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Commission europ\u00e9enne contre Royaume d’Espagne.#Manquement d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Transport ferroviaire \u2013 Directive 2012\/34\/UE \u2013 Article 4, paragraphe 2 \u2013 Ind\u00e9pendance de gestion du gestionnaire de l\u2019infrastructure \u2013 Conseils d\u2019administration des gestionnaires de l\u2019infrastructure compos\u00e9s en grande partie d\u2019agents de l\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Nominations et r\u00e9vocations soumises au pouvoir discr\u00e9tionnaire de l\u2019\u00c9tat.#Affaire C-250\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The Court’s judgment in Case C-250\/24 addresses whether Spain failed to properly implement EU law concerning the independence of railway infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. The European Commission brought the action against Spain, alleging deficiencies in transposing Directive 2012\/34\/EU, which establishes a single European railway area.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around four main complaints raised by the Commission. These relate to the management independence of railway entities, the system for setting infrastructure usage charges, and the implementation of incentives to reduce infrastructure costs. The Court examines each complaint, assessing whether Spain has met its obligations under Directive 2012\/34\/EU.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions relate to the independence of railway infrastructure managers (ADIF and ADIF-Alta Velocidad) and railway undertakings (Renfe). The Commission argued that Spain did not guarantee the management independence of these entities from the state, particularly concerning the composition of their boards and the setting of railway service fees. The Court ultimately rejected the Commission’s arguments, finding that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated a failure of Spain to comply with the Directive’s requirements regarding management independence.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0009\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Sonasurf Internacional – Shipping, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) e.a. contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-9\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (seventh chamber) regarding a case concerning State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). The case revolves around tax advantages given to companies operating within the zone and whether these advantages were implemented by Portugal in compliance with previous decisions made by the European Commission.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses an appeal by Sonasurf Internacional and other companies against a decision of the General Court, which had rejected their challenge to a Commission decision finding that Portugal had illegally implemented the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) by violating conditions ensuring its compatibility with the internal market. The Court of Justice upholds the General Court’s decision, finding no errors in its legal reasoning.<\/p>\n<p>The main points of the judgment are:<br \/>\n– The Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision.<br \/>\n– It finds that the General Court did not err in its assessment that the Commission’s decision did not impose a specific methodology (ETP and UTA) for calculating job creation.<br \/>\n– The Court also rejects the argument that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations were violated, as the companies failed to demonstrate that the Commission provided specific assurances regarding the compatibility of the aid scheme.<br \/>\n– The appealing companies are ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0013\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#AFG, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-13\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (seventh chamber) regarding a dispute over State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). The case concerns the annulment of a decision by the European Commission regarding the aid scheme SA.21259 (2018\/C) (ex 2018\/NN) implemented by Portugal in favor of the Madeira Free Zone (ZFM) \u2013 Regime III.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses an appeal by AFG SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) against the decision of the General Court, which rejected its action for annulment of Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of the Commission’s decision. The Commission’s decision declared that the aid scheme “Zona Franca de Madeira (ZFM) \u2013 Regime III” was illegally implemented by Portugal in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU and was incompatible with the internal market. The decision required Portugal to recover the incompatible aid from the beneficiaries.<\/p>\n<p>The main points of contention in the appeal were whether the General Court erred in finding that the aid scheme was selective, whether it misinterpreted the conditions for granting tax reductions (specifically, the requirement that activities be “effectively and materially realized in Madeira”), and whether it violated the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and proportionality. The Court of Justice dismissed all the arguments raised by AFG SA, upholding the General Court’s decision and confirming the Commission’s power to order the recovery of illegal and incompatible aid.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0639\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2025.FLO VENEER d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Taxation \u2013 Common system of value added tax (VAT) \u2013 Directive 2006\/112\/EC \u2013 Article 138(1) \u2013 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282\/2011 \u2013 Article 45a \u2013 Conditions for exemption in respect of intra-Community supplies of goods \u2013 Presumption \u2013 Requisite evidence.Case C-639\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the VAT Directive and Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011, specifically concerning the conditions for VAT exemption on intra-Community supplies of goods. The case revolves around a Croatian company, FLO VENEER, and a dispute with the Croatian Ministry of Finance regarding VAT exemption for oak logs sold to a buyer in Slovenia. The Croatian tax authority denied the VAT exemption because FLO VENEER allegedly did not provide sufficient evidence as required by Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies how tax authorities should assess evidence for VAT exemptions on intra-Community supplies. It emphasizes that a VAT exemption cannot be denied solely because the specific evidence outlined in Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011 is not provided. National tax authorities are obliged to assess all evidence presented to determine if goods were indeed dispatched or transported from one Member State to another within the EU, even if the conditions for presumption under Article 45a(1) are not met.<\/p>\n<p>The key takeaway is that while Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011 provides a presumption of evidence for intra-Community supply, it is not exhaustive. Tax authorities must consider all evidence presented by the supplier to determine if the substantive requirements for VAT exemption are met. The CJEU reaffirms that formal requirements should not override the right to a VAT exemption if the core conditions of an intra-Community supply are satisfied, unless there is intentional tax evasion or the missing formality prevents conclusive evidence of the supply.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0272\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.HZ v Tribunalul Gala\u0163i.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Article 2 TEU \u2013 Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU \u2013 Principle of judicial independence \u2013 Directive 2003\/88\/EC \u2013 Weekly working time \u2013 Overtime worked by judges \u2013 National legislation providing for compensation by means of a rest period excluding financial compensation \u2013 Adequate remuneration.Case C-272\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU law related to judicial independence and working time, specifically in the context of a Romanian judge seeking financial compensation for overtime work.<\/p>\n<p>**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses whether national legislation can prohibit financial compensation for overtime worked by a judge due to staff shortages, where compensation is limited to rest periods. The CJEU clarifies the scope of judicial independence under Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, particularly concerning fair remuneration. It balances the need to protect judicial independence with the Member States’ discretion in managing public expenditure and addressing budgetary constraints. The court emphasizes that while financial compensation can be replaced by a rest period, the rest period should be available to use and the total remuneration should be adequate.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>* **Introduction:** Sets out the context of the request for a preliminary ruling and the relevant EU provisions.<br \/>\n* **Legal Context:** Details the relevant articles of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, and Directive 2003\/88\/EC (the Working Time Directive). It also outlines the relevant Romanian legislation, specifically Framework Law No. 153\/2017 and several Government Emergency Orders (OUG) that derogate from it.<br \/>\n* **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Question Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Explains the factual background of the case, including the judge’s claim for compensation and the referring court’s question to the CJEU.<br \/>\n* **Consideration of the Question Referred:** This is the core of the judgment, where the CJEU analyzes the question and provides its interpretation of EU law. It discusses the scope of judicial independence, the importance of adequate remuneration for judges, and the conditions under which a Member State can derogate from general rules on remuneration due to budgetary constraints.<br \/>\n* **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs in the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\n<p>* **Judicial Independence:** The judgment reaffirms that judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law and is essential for ensuring the full application of EU law.<br \/>\n* **Adequate Remuneration:** It emphasizes that judges must receive a level of remuneration commensurate with the importance of their functions, protecting them from external interference or pressure.<br \/>\n* **Derogations:** The judgment acknowledges that Member States can adopt budgetary restriction measures affecting judges’ remuneration, but such measures must be provided for by law, justified by an objective in the general interest (such as eliminating an excessive government deficit), and proportionate.<br \/>\n* **Compensatory Rest:** The judgment states that compensating overtime with rest periods is acceptable if the judge can actually use the rest period and the overall remuneration remains commensurate with the judge’s functions.<br \/>\n* **Assessment Criteria:** The judgment provides guidance on assessing the adequacy of judges’ remuneration, including considering the economic, social, and financial situation of the Member State and comparing judges’ average remuneration with the average salary in that State.<\/p>\n<p>**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for practical use are those that outline the conditions under which a Member State can limit financial compensation for judges’ overtime work. Specifically:<\/p>\n<p>* Any derogating measure must be provided for by law and be objective, foreseeable, and transparent.<br \/>\n* It must be justified by an objective in the general interest, such as eliminating an excessive government deficit.<br \/>\n* It must be proportionate, meaning it is appropriate for achieving the objective, limited to what is strictly necessary, and not disproportionate to the objective.<br \/>\n* The judge must be able to actually use the compensatory rest period.<br \/>\n* The legislation must not undermine the commensurate relationship between a judge’s remuneration and the importance of their functions.<\/p>\n<p>These provisions provide a framework for assessing the legality of national measures that affect judges’ remuneration in the context of budgetary constraints.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0563\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2025.Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v PB Vi Goods GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of spirit drinks \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2019\/787 \u2013 Article 10(7) \u2013 Prohibition on using legal names for any beverage that does not comply with the requirements of the relevant categories \u2013 Gin \u2013 Beverage named \u2018non-alcoholic gin\u2019 \u2013 Article 12(1) \u2013 Allusions \u2013 Validity of Article 10(7) \u2013 Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Freedom to conduct a business \u2013 Principle of proportionality.Case C-563\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This judgment concerns the interpretation and validity of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019\/787 regarding the definition, description, presentation, and labeling of spirit drinks, specifically in relation to the use of the name “gin” for non-alcoholic beverages. The Court was asked to determine whether it is permissible to market a non-alcoholic beverage as “non-alcoholic gin” and whether the prohibition of such labeling infringes upon the freedom to conduct a business. The case originated from a dispute in Germany regarding the advertising of a beverage named “Virgin Gin Alkoholfrei” (non-alcoholic Virgin Gin).<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by the Landgericht Potsdam (Regional Court, Potsdam, Germany). First, it addresses whether Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019\/787, which prohibits the use of legal names for beverages that do not comply with the requirements of the relevant spirit drink category, is invalid due to an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business). Second, it seeks clarification on whether Article 10(7) or Article 12(1) of the same regulation should be interpreted as prohibiting the presentation or labeling of a non-alcoholic beverage as “non-alcoholic gin.” The Court concludes that Article 10(7) does prohibit the use of the name “non-alcoholic gin” for beverages that do not meet the requirements for gin, and that this prohibition is valid and does not infringe upon the freedom to conduct a business.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of the act is Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019\/787, which explicitly prohibits the use of spirit drink legal names for beverages that do not comply with the requirements of the relevant spirit drink category. The Court’s interpretation and validation of this article confirm that the term “gin” cannot be used for non-alcoholic beverages, even with the addition of the qualifier “non-alcoholic.” This is to prevent consumer confusion and protect the reputation of genuine gin.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0117\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.JYSK Kereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti \u00c9lelmiszerl\u00e1nc-biztons\u00e1gi Hivatal.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Environment \u2013 Obligations of operators placing timber and timber products on the market \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 995\/2010 \u2013 Use, maintenance and regular evaluation of a due diligence system \u2013 Article 4(2) and (3) and Article 6 \u2013 Group of companies \u2013 Access of an operator to a due diligence system maintained and evaluated by its parent company or established by a monitoring organisation and used by that parent company.Case C-117\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), specifically Regulation (EU) No 995\/2010. The case revolves around a Hungarian subsidiary of a Danish company (JYSK) and whether it can rely on the due diligence system (DDS) of its parent company to comply with the EUTR, or if it needs its own, independent DDS. The Hungarian authorities had fined JYSK for not having its own DDS. The CJEU clarifies the obligations of operators under the EUTR, particularly concerning the use and maintenance of due diligence systems.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. It starts with an introduction outlining the request for a preliminary ruling and the relevant articles of the EUTR.<br \/>\n2. It then details the legal context, including relevant recitals and articles from Regulation No 995\/2010 and Implementing Regulation No 607\/2012. These sections define key terms like “operator” and “due diligence system” and outline the obligations of operators and monitoring organizations.<br \/>\n3. The judgment describes the dispute in the main proceedings, summarizing the arguments of JYSK and the Hungarian National Food Chain Safety Office.<br \/>\n4. It then presents the question referred by the Hungarian court, which asks whether it is sufficient for an operator to have access to a DDS maintained by its parent company or a monitoring organization used by its parent company.<br \/>\n5. The Court’s consideration of the question is the core of the judgment. It analyzes the wording, context, and objectives of the EUTR to determine the scope of an operator’s obligations.<br \/>\n6. Finally, the judgment provides the Court’s answer to the question, ruling that it is not sufficient for an operator to merely have access to a DDS maintained by its parent company; it must have its own DDS.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions clarified by this judgment are:<br \/>\n* **Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 995\/2010**: This article mandates that operators exercise due diligence when placing timber on the market and maintain and regularly evaluate their DDS. The judgment clarifies that “using” a DDS implies active behavior and adaptation to the operator’s specific commercial activity.<br \/>\n* **Article 6(1) of Regulation No 995\/2010**: This article outlines the elements of a DDS, including access to information, risk assessment, and risk mitigation procedures. The judgment emphasizes that these elements must pertain to the operator’s own activities.<br \/>\n* The judgment specifies that while operators can be assisted by third parties in establishing a DDS, they cannot simply rely on a DDS established and maintained by a parent company. The operator itself must actively use, maintain, and evaluate the DDS, unless it is using a DDS established by a monitoring organization.<br \/>\n* The Court underscores that the effectiveness of checks by competent authorities would be undermined if operators could simply share access to a DDS established by a third party. The operator must be able to demonstrate how it applies the DDS and takes decisions on risk mitigation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0004\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.BNP Paribas Public Sector SA v Single Resolution Board.Appeal \u2013 Economic and monetary policy \u2013 Economic and monetary union \u2013 Banking union \u2013 Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) \u2013 Single Resolution Fund (SRF) \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014 \u2013 Article 69(1) \u2013 Article 70(1) \u2013 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/81 \u2013 Article 7(1) to (3) \u2013 Sums paid as collateral backing irrevocable payment commitments \u2013 Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) refusing to return the sums paid.Case C-4\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) regarding an appeal by BNP Paribas Public Sector SA against a judgment of the General Court. The case concerns the interpretation of EU regulations related to the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), specifically dealing with the return of collateral backing irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) made by credit institutions. The core issue is whether the Single Resolution Board (SRB) can refuse to return the collateral until the sums committed under the IPCs are paid in cash, especially when a credit institution exits the scope of the SRM. The Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, upholding the SRB’s position.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>1. **Background:** It outlines the legal context, including Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/81, which govern the SRM and SRF. It defines key terms like “available financial means” and details the rules for calculating and managing ex-ante contributions to the SRF, including the use of irrevocable payment commitments.<br \/>\n2. **Facts of the Case:** It describes the specific circumstances, including BNP Paribas Public Sector SA’s participation in the SRM, its irrevocable payment commitments to the SRF for multiple years, and its subsequent request for the return of collateral after its authorization was withdrawn. The SRB’s refusal to return the collateral until cash payments were made is central to the dispute.<br \/>\n3. **General Court Decision:** It summarizes the General Court’s judgment, which dismissed BNP Paribas’s action. The General Court supported the SRB’s interpretation that the collateral could be returned only after the corresponding cash amounts were paid, emphasizing the need to maintain the financial capacity and liquidity of the SRF.<br \/>\n4. **Appeal Arguments:** It presents the arguments made by BNP Paribas Public Sector SA in its appeal, supported by the French Republic and the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration bancaire fran\u00e7aise. These arguments focus on alleged errors of law in the interpretation of the relevant regulations and a failure to state reasons in the General Court’s judgment.<br \/>\n5. **Court of Justice Analysis:** It provides a detailed analysis of each of the appellant’s arguments, ultimately rejecting them. The Court emphasizes the importance of interpreting the regulations in a way that ensures the SRF’s financial stability and the principle of equal treatment among credit institutions.<br \/>\n6. **Decision:** The Court dismisses the appeal and orders BNP Paribas Public Sector SA to pay the costs.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 69 and 70 of Regulation No. 806\/2014:** These articles define the target level for the SRF and the rules for ex-ante contributions from credit institutions. They establish the obligation for institutions to contribute to the fund and allow for contributions to be made through irrevocable payment commitments.<br \/>\n* **Article 7 of Implementing Regulation 2015\/81:** This article specifies the conditions for calling irrevocable payment commitments and returning collateral. It states that recourse to IPCs should not affect the SRF’s financial capacity and liquidity and that collateral should be returned when the contribution linked to the IPC has been duly received.<\/p>\n<p>The Court’s interpretation of these provisions is crucial. It clarifies that even when a credit institution exits the scope of Regulation No. 806\/2014, it is still obligated to fulfill its contribution commitments to the SRF for the period it was under the regulation. The SRB can, therefore, withhold the return of collateral until the corresponding cash amounts are paid, ensuring the SRF’s financial stability and equal treatment among institutions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0678\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.JU v Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie Ia\u015fi.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Social policy \u2013 Directive 89\/391\/EEC \u2013 Safety and health of workers at work \u2013 Article 9 \u2013 Employers\u2019 obligations \u2013 Classification of workplaces according to whether they are exposing workers to risk factors to their safety and health \u2013 Article 11(6) \u2013 Proceedings before the authority responsible for safety and health protection at work \u2013 Effective judicial protection.Case C-678\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 89\/391\/EEC on the safety and health of workers at work. The case originates from Romania and concerns a dispute over the classification of a hospital worker’s job as exposing her to particular risks, which would entitle her to additional benefits. The CJEU clarifies the scope and limitations of the directive, particularly concerning the right of workers to appeal decisions related to workplace safety and health risks.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. It begins with an introduction outlining the request for a preliminary ruling and the parties involved.<br \/>\n2. It then presents the relevant legal context, including EU law (Directives 89\/391\/EEC and 2003\/88\/EC) and Romanian national law (Labour Code, Law No. 319\/2006, and various government decisions).<br \/>\n3. It describes the facts of the main proceedings, the questions referred by the Romanian court, and the Court’s analysis.<br \/>\n4. The Court addresses two key questions related to the interpretation of Directive 89\/391. The first question concerns whether the Directive precludes national legislation that prevents workers from directly appealing to the authority responsible for safety and health or from taking legal action if they believe their employer has not fulfilled obligations regarding the classification of workplaces as exposing workers to particular working conditions. The second question concerns whether Article 11(6) of Directive 89\/391 has direct effect and recognizes workers’ right to judicial protection if employers fail to fulfill their obligations.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the judgment are:<br \/>\n* **Clarification of the Scope of Directive 89\/391:** The CJEU clarifies that Directive 89\/391 aims to improve the safety and health of workers but does not require Member States to classify workplaces based on health risks to provide additional pension and annual leave rights.<br \/>\n* **Member States’ Discretion:** The judgment emphasizes that Member States have discretion in implementing systems for classifying workplaces according to health risks, as long as these systems do not undermine the obligations of employers under Directive 89\/391.<br \/>\n* **Annual Leave and Directive 2003\/88:** The CJEU notes that while granting additional annual leave may be justified to ensure worker safety and health, Directive 2003\/88\/EC only sets minimum requirements and does not prevent Member States from providing more favorable provisions.<br \/>\n* **Right to Assessment:** The Court acknowledges that workers have the right to challenge the inadequacy of measures taken by employers to ensure safety and health at work following a risk assessment.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0019\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2\u00a0April 2025 in Case E-19\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Failure to implement \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/1859 \u2013 Technical standards for registration as trade repositories)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 into its national law. The regulation concerns technical standards for the format of applications for registration and extension of registration as trade repositories. The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought the case against Iceland for not fulfilling its obligations under the EEA Agreement. The Court ruled that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>* It identifies the case (E-19\/24) and the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland).<br \/>\n* It states the object of the application: a declaration that Iceland failed to implement Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859.<br \/>\n* It mentions the relevant articles of the EEA Agreement and Annex IX.<br \/>\n* It lists the composition of the Court.<br \/>\n* The operative part of the judgment contains two points:<br \/>\n * A declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations.<br \/>\n * An order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The core of the judgment revolves around Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 into its national legal order, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248\/2012, focusing on the format for applications related to trade repositories.<\/p>\n<p>**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement. This means Iceland was legally required to incorporate Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 into its national law but did not do so by the time of the judgment. The judgment creates a binding obligation for Iceland to take necessary measures to comply with the ruling, meaning to implement the mentioned regulation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0020\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2\u00a0April 2025 in Case E-20\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Failure to implement \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/750 \u2013 Benchmarks in OTC derivative contracts)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement a specific EU regulation into its national law. The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022\/750, which concerns benchmarks in Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivative contracts, into its legal system as required by the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority vs. Iceland), and the legal basis for the action (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). The operative part of the judgment contains two points: (1) a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/750 and (2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. This judgment does not introduce new regulations but enforces the existing obligation of Iceland to adopt EU regulations that are relevant to the EEA agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this judgment is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement. This highlights the importance of timely and complete implementation of EU regulations by EEA member states to ensure the integrity and proper functioning of the internal market. The judgment serves as a reminder to Iceland and other EEA member states of their obligations to transpose relevant EU legislation into their national legal orders.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0021\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2\u00a0April 2025 in Case E-21\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Failure to implement \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/314 \u2013 Risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement a specific EU regulation into its national law. The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The Court ruled that Iceland did not incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, which pertains to risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral, into its legal framework as required by the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland), and the legal basis for the claim (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). The operative part of the judgment contains two points: (1) a declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, and (2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgment refers to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, which amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016\/2251. The amendment concerns the date of application of certain risk management procedures related to the exchange of collateral. This likely involves setting or adjusting deadlines for when specific risk management protocols must be in place.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the legal requirement for EEA member states to incorporate relevant EU legislation into their national laws. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely implementation of EU regulations to maintain the integrity and consistency of the EEA.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C06202\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>State aid \u2013 Decision to raise no objections<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a state aid measure implemented by Norway. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to Norway’s compensation scheme for rail freight operators who suffered losses due to the closure of the Otta bridge. The scheme aims to compensate these operators for direct losses incurred between January 21, 2025, and April 4, 2025, due to the bridge’s closure caused by structural damage from icing. The aid will be provided in the form of grants, covering 95% of the losses, with a total budget of NOK 70 million.<\/p>\n<p>The decision provides information on the case number, decision number, the EFTA state involved (Norway), and the region affected (all regions). It outlines the legal basis for the scheme, which is Norway’s 2025 State budget. The objective of the scheme is clearly stated as compensating rail freight operators for losses directly resulting from the Otta bridge closure. The form of aid is grants, with an intensity of 95% of the losses covered. The duration of the compensation period is specified, and the relevant economic sector is identified as freight rail transport (NACE H \u2013 49.200). The granting authority is the Norwegian Railway Directorate.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for potential users are the eligibility criteria, which are rail freight operators who incurred direct losses due to the Otta bridge closure between January 21, 2025, and April 4, 2025. The level of compensation (95% of losses) and the responsible authority (Norwegian Railway Directorate) are also key pieces of information for those seeking to benefit from this scheme.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0018\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 21\u00a0May 2025 in Case E-18\/24\u00a0\u2013 The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Energy v Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway (Environment \u2013 Directive\u00a02011\/92\/EU \u2013 Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment \u2013 Article\u00a03(1) \u2013 Projects covered by Annex\u00a0I \u2013 Extraction of petroleum and natural gas that will be sold to third parties \u2013 Principle of sincere cooperation \u2013 Requirement to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of EEA law)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the EFTA Court concerning a case between the Norwegian State and environmental organizations, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway. The case revolves around the interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 2011\/92\/EU, specifically regarding the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas. The Court clarifies that these emissions constitute ‘effects’ of the extraction project and emphasizes the obligation of national courts to rectify failures in conducting thorough environmental impact assessments.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured into three key operative points. The first point clarifies that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas, which are then sold to third parties, fall under the ‘effects’ that need to be assessed according to the EIA Directive. The second point addresses the responsibilities of national courts when a full environmental impact assessment has not been carried out. It states that national courts must, to the extent possible under national law, rectify the unlawful consequences of this failure. However, it allows for the possibility of regularizing the situation by conducting an assessment while the project is ongoing or even after completion, provided that national rules do not allow parties to circumvent EEA law and that the assessment considers the project’s environmental impact from its completion date, not just future impacts. The third point explicitly prohibits national courts from retroactively waiving the obligation to assess the effects under Article 3(1) of the EIA Directive.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of this judgment are those concerning the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in the environmental impact assessment and the conditions under which a deficient EIA can be regularized. The judgment makes it clear that the environmental impact assessment must include emissions from the combustion of the extracted resources, even if that combustion occurs elsewhere by third parties. Furthermore, the judgment provides clarity on how national courts should handle situations where a proper environmental impact assessment was not initially conducted, setting conditions for regularization that ensure the effectiveness of the EIA Directive and prevent circumvention of its requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C06201\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>State aid \u2013 Decision to raise no objections<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a Norwegian state aid scheme. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to amendments made to Norway’s innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media. The scheme aims to promote the development of editorial content and new solutions for its production, publishing, or dissemination. The aid is provided in the form of grants, with a maximum budget of NOK 30 million per year and an intensity of 40% (or 75% for small local news outlets).<\/p>\n<p>The decision concerns amendments to an existing scheme supporting innovation and development in Norwegian news and current affairs media. The scheme aims to foster the development of editorial content and the implementation of innovative solutions related to production, publishing, and dissemination, including projects designed to increase content consumption among the general population or specific groups. The aid is provided as grants. The standard aid intensity is capped at 40%, but small local news and current affairs media can receive up to 75%. The scheme is set to run from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2028. It targets a range of economic sectors, including publishing, radio broadcasting, television programming, and other information service activities.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for potential beneficiaries are the aid intensities (40% or 75% for small local news outlets), the eligible sectors defined by NACE codes, and the objectives of the scheme, which focus on innovation and development in editorial content and its dissemination. The duration of the scheme, until the end of 2028, is also a key factor for planning purposes.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C0117\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No\u00a0117\/25\/COL of 9\u00a0July 2025 on the designation of a new Hearing Officer in certain competition proceedings [2025\/2308]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision concerns the appointment of a new Hearing Officer within the context of certain competition proceedings. It replaces a previous Hearing Officer whose contract has ended, ensuring the continuity of the function. The decision designates Johanne F\u00f8rde as the new Hearing Officer, recognizing her qualifications and experience, while also formally terminating the appointment of Michael S\u00e1nchez Rydelski.<\/p>\n<p>The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 appoints Johanne F\u00f8rde as Hearing Officer, referencing the foundational decision (No 442\/12\/COL) that outlines the role and responsibilities of Hearing Officers. Article 2 terminates the appointment of Michael S\u00e1nchez Rydelski. Article 3 mandates the publication of the appointment and termination in the Official Journal of the European Union, the EEA Supplement, and on the EFTA Surveillance Authority\u2019s website, and also requires informing the EFTA States and the European Commission. Article 4 states that the decision is authentic in English and enters into force on 9 July 2025.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this decision is the assurance of continued impartial oversight in competition proceedings within the EFTA framework. The appointment of Johanne F\u00f8rde ensures that there is a qualified individual to fulfill the duties of a Hearing Officer, as defined by Decision No 442\/12\/COL.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Act Review Review of Legal Acts Case C-491\/17, *Airbnb Ireland*, 2025 The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the term “traveller” under Directive 2015\/2302\/EU includes legal persons, such as non-profit associations booking travel for their members. This ensures that such associations can claim refunds and protections under the Directive, safeguarding the…<\/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-13254","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\/13254","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=13254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":13254,"date":"2025-11-14T09:16:14","date_gmt":"2025-11-14T07:16:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-14-11-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-14T09:16:14","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T07:16:14","slug":"review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-14-11-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-14-11-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the EU legislation for 14\/11\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\nLegal Act Review<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h4>Review of Legal Acts<\/h4>\n<h5>Case C-491\/17, *Airbnb Ireland*, 2025<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the term “traveller” under Directive 2015\/2302\/EU includes legal persons, such as non-profit associations booking travel for their members. This ensures that such associations can claim refunds and protections under the Directive, safeguarding the rights of individual travellers represented.<\/p>\n<h5>Case C-197\/24, *\u0160i\u013earsk\u00fd*, 2025<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the concepts of “undertaking” and “consumer” under Directive 2011\/7\/EU and Directive 93\/13\/EEC. It ruled that a natural person hiring a lawyer to set up a company is not automatically an “undertaking” and can be a “consumer” if not already engaged in related economic activity at the time of contracting.<\/p>\n<h5>European Delegated Prosecutor Appointment Dispute<\/h5>\n<p>The Court decision addressed the rejection of a candidate for the position of European Delegated Prosecutor. The Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible due to the expiration of the appeal deadline and the confirmatory nature of the EPPO’s subsequent decisions.<\/p>\n<h5>Madeira Free Zone State Aid Dispute<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice dismissed an appeal concerning State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone. The Court found no error in interpreting the conditions for granting tax advantages, particularly regarding the origin of profits and job creation, and upheld the previous ruling.<\/p>\n<h5>Family Foundations and Gift Tax (EEA Agreement)<\/h5>\n<p>The Court of Justice ruled on the compatibility of a German tax law with the EEA Agreement. The court stated that the tax law doesn’t violate Article 40 of the EEA Agreement, as long as the difference in tax treatment is proportionate.<\/p>\n<h5>Inteligo Media and Data Protection<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarified the conditions for sending unsolicited marketing emails under the ePrivacy Directive and GDPR. It defined “direct marketing” broadly, confirmed that obtaining an email during free account creation can be “in the context of the sale of a service,” and clarified the relationship between the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR regarding consent requirements.<\/p>\n<h5>Directive 2016\/801 and Sufficient Resources for Voluntary Service<\/h5>\n<p>The Court clarified that Member States cannot impose extra requirements about the kind of resources a third-country national needs to show to prove they have enough money to live on under Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2016\/801.<\/p>\n<h5>European Commission v Spain, Case C-250\/24<\/h5>\n<p>The Court rejected the European Commission’s claim that Spain failed to ensure the management independence of railway infrastructure managers (ADIF and ADIF-Alta Velocidad) and railway undertakings (Renfe), finding that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated a failure to comply with Directive 2012\/34\/EU.<\/p>\n<h5>State aid in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). Case of Sonasurf Internacional<\/h5>\n<p>The Court upheld the General Court’s decision in the case concerning State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone, stating that the General Court did not err in its assessment that the Commission’s decision did not impose a specific methodology (ETP and UTA) for calculating job creation.<\/p>\n<h5>State aid in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). Case of AFG SA<\/h5>\n<p>The Court dismissed the AFG SA\u2019s appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision and confirming the Commission’s power to order the recovery of illegal and incompatible aid.<\/p>\n<h5>FLO VENEER and VAT Exemption<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarified that tax authorities must assess all evidence presented for VAT exemptions on intra-Community supplies, even if the specific evidence outlined in Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011 is not provided.<\/p>\n<h5>Compensation for Romanian Judges\u2019 Overtime Work<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarified conditions under which Member States can limit financial compensation for judges’ overtime work. Any derogating measure must be provided for by law and justified by an objective in the general interest, such as eliminating an excessive government deficit. The measure must be proportionate and the judge must be able to actually use the compensatory rest period.<\/p>\n<h5>Regulation (EU) 2019\/787 and “Non-Alcoholic Gin”<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU decided that Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019\/787 prohibits the use of the name “non-alcoholic gin” for beverages that do not meet the requirements for gin, and that this prohibition is valid and does not infringe upon the freedom to conduct a business.<\/p>\n<h5>Regulation (EU) No 995\/2010 (EU Timber Regulation – EUTR)<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU ruled that it is not sufficient for an operator to merely have access to a DDS maintained by its parent company; it must have its own DDS. The operator itself must actively use, maintain, and evaluate the DDS, unless it is using a DDS established by a monitoring organization.<\/p>\n<h5>BNP Paribas Public Sector SA vs. SRB (Single Resolution Board)<\/h5>\n<p>The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the SRB’s position that the collateral backing irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) can be returned only after the corresponding cash amounts are paid, ensuring the SRF’s financial stability and equal treatment among institutions.<\/p>\n<h5>Worker Safety at Hospitals in Romania. Case concerning application of Directive 89\/391\/EEC<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarifies that Directive 89\/391 aims to improve the safety and health of workers but does not require Member States to classify workplaces based on health risks to provide additional pension and annual leave rights.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Case E-19\/24<\/h5>\n<p>EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 concerning the format of applications for registration and extension of registration as trade repositories into its national legal order.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court ruling regarding Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022\/750<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022\/750, which concerns benchmarks in Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivative contracts, into its legal system.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Court Case E-15\/24 (Iceland\/Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314)<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court ruled that Iceland did not incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, which pertains to risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral, into its legal framework.<\/p>\n<h5>Norway State Aid Compensation Scheme<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Surveillance Authority decided not to raise objections to Norway’s compensation scheme for rail freight operators who suffered losses due to the Otta bridge closure. The aid is provided in the form of grants, covering 95% of the losses.<\/p>\n<h5>Greenhouse Gas Emissions Case at EFTA Court<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court clarified that greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas are effects needing assessment under the EIA Directive. The judgment emphasizes the obligations of national courts to rectify failures in conducting thorough environmental impact assessments.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on Norwegian state aid scheme<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Surveillance Authority decided not to raise objections to amendments made to Norway’s innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media. The scheme supports innovation and development of editorial content, including increased content consumption, with aid intensities of 40% or 75%.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on Appointment of New Hearing Officer<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Surveillance Authority appointed Johanne F\u00f8rde as the new Hearing Officer, replacing Michael S\u00e1nchez Rydelski, to ensure continued impartial oversight in competition proceedings within the EFTA framework.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502003\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2003 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of dual-use items<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502295\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2295 of 13\u00a0November 2025 setting out the list and description of variables and their technical specifications, statistical classifications, breakdowns, metadata and precision targets for the topics job vacancies, labour cost index and gender pay gap pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02025\/941 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502288\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2288 of 13\u00a0November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/1044 as regards a major change to the Union authorisation of the single biocidal product Pesguard\u00ae Gel in accordance with Regulation (EU) No\u00a0528\/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502215\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2215 of 31\u00a0October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/964 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family SOPUROXID<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2327\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2327 of 12\u00a0November 2025 amending for the 353rd time Council Regulation (EC) No\u00a0881\/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2287\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2287 of 12\u00a0November 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of adipic acid originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2272\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2272 of 12\u00a0November 2025 renewing the approval of the active substance gibberellins as a low-risk active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No\u00a01107\/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No\u00a0540\/2011<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2269\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Regulation (EU) 2025\/2269 of 12\u00a0November 2025 correcting Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/1616 as regards labelling of recycled plastic, the development of recycling technologies and the transfer of authorisations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2274\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Regulation (EU) 2025\/2274 of 12\u00a0November 2025 amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1487 as regards the adoption of the work programme for the gradual review of safeners and synergists<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0779\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (sixi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Samer Kamal Al-Assad contre Conseil de l’Union europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 commune \u2013 Mesures restrictives prises \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de la Syrie \u2013 D\u00e9cision 2013\/255\/PESC \u2013 R\u00e8glement (UE) no 36\/2012 \u2013 Gel des fonds et des ressources \u00e9conomiques \u2013 Inscription du nom du requ\u00e9rant sur les listes des personnes, des entit\u00e9s et des organismes concern\u00e9s \u2013 Crit\u00e8re de l\u2019appartenance familiale.#Affaire C-779\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0632\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 State aid \u2013 Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market \u2013 Second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU \u2013 Forest land swap transactions \u2013 Obligation to recover \u2013 Obligation to provide information \u2013 Failure to comply.Case C-632\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0499\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2025.European Commission v Hungary.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Free movement of goods \u2013 Article 35 TFEU \u2013 Quantitative restrictions on exports \u2013 Measures having equivalent effect \u2013 Construction materials \u2013 Obligation to notify exports \u2013 State\u2019s right of pre-emption \u2013 Article 36 TFEU \u2013 Justification \u2013 Public security \u2013 Supply of construction materials for critical infrastructure \u2013 Control of exports to third countries \u2013 Exclusive competence of the Union \u2013 Common commercial policy \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2015\/479 \u2013 Common rules for exports \u2013 Directive (EU) 2015\/1535 \u2013 Information procedure in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services.Case C-499\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0803\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Bourbon Offshore Interoil Shipping – Navega\u00e7\u00e3o, Lda contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-803\/23 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0445\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.MS Amlin Insurance SE v (W)onderweg VZW.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Approximation of laws \u2013 Directive (EU) 2015\/2302 \u2013 Package travel and linked travel arrangements \u2013 Article 3(6) \u2013 Concept of \u2018traveller\u2019 \u2013 Legal person who has concluded a travel contract for its members.Case C-445\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the term “traveller” in the context of the Package Travel Directive (Directive 2015\/2302\/EU). The case revolves around a non-profit association that booked a trip for its members and sought a refund from an insurance company after the travel agency went bankrupt. The CJEU clarifies whether a legal person, like the non-profit association, can be considered a “traveller” under the Directive.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows: It starts with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the parties involved. It then presents the legal context, including relevant articles from Directive 90\/314\/EEC and Directive 2015\/2302\/EU, as well as the relevant Belgian law. Following this, it details the dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred to the CJEU by the national court. The core of the judgment is the “Consideration of the question referred,” where the CJEU analyzes the meaning of “traveller” in Article 3(6) of Directive 2015\/2302\/EU. Finally, it concludes with the ruling and a note on costs.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision clarified is Article 3(6) of Directive 2015\/2302\/EU. The CJEU concludes that the term “traveller” includes legal persons, such as non-profit associations, that conclude package travel contracts with an organiser in their own name but on behalf of their members. This interpretation ensures that these associations can claim refunds and other protections under the Directive, safeguarding the rights of the individual travellers they represent. This is a new interpretation, because previously it was not clear whether the term “traveller” includes legal persons.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0197\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.AK v RU.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Directive 2011\/7\/EU \u2013 Combating late payment in commercial transactions \u2013 Scope \u2013 Article 2(1) and (3) \u2013 Concept of \u2018undertaking\u2019 \u2013 Concept of \u2018commercial transaction\u2019 \u2013 Contract for the provision of legal services with a view to setting up a commercial company \u2013 Directive 93\/13\/EEC \u2013 Article 2(b) \u2013 Concept of \u2018consumer\u2019 \u2013 Natural person who engaged the services of a lawyer with a view to setting up a commercial company.Case C-197\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) in Case C-197\/24, *\u0160i\u013earsk\u00fd*, delivered on 13 November 2025. The judgment addresses a request for a preliminary ruling from a Slovak court regarding the interpretation of Directive 2011\/7\/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions and Directive 93\/13\/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The case concerns a dispute between a legal services company (AK) and a natural person (RU) regarding payment for legal services related to setting up a commercial company.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies the concepts of “undertaking” and “commercial transaction” under Directive 2011\/7\/EU, as well as the concept of “consumer” under Directive 93\/13\/EEC. The Court rules that a natural person who hires a lawyer to set up a company, where that person will be a co-founder, member, and managing director, is not automatically considered an “undertaking.” The Court also clarifies that such a person can be considered a “consumer” if, at the time of contracting for legal services, they were not already engaged in an independent economic or professional activity related to that contract.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the directives in question and the nature of the dispute.<br \/>\n2. **Legal Context:** Summarizes the relevant articles of Directive 2011\/7\/EU and Directive 93\/13\/EEC.<br \/>\n3. **Slovak Law:** Details the relevant provisions of Slovak law, including the Commercial Code, Civil Code, and Law on the Profession of Lawyer.<br \/>\n4. **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Questions Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Describes the factual background of the case and the questions posed by the Slovak court.<br \/>\n5. **Consideration of the Questions Referred:**<br \/>\n * **The First Question:** Addresses whether a natural person seeking legal services to found a company should be considered an “undertaking.” The Court concludes that this status is not automatic.<br \/>\n * **The Second Question:** Clarifies whether such a natural person can be considered a “consumer.” The Court concludes that they can be, if they were not engaged in a related economic activity at the time of contracting.<br \/>\n6. **Costs:** Allocates costs according to standard procedure.<br \/>\n7. **Operative Part:** Summarizes the Court’s rulings on the questions referred.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions clarified are:<br \/>\n* **Article 2(1) and (3) of Directive 2011\/7\/EU:** Defines “commercial transactions” and “undertaking.” The Court emphasizes that a person must be acting in the course of an existing independent economic or professional activity to be considered an “undertaking.”<br \/>\n* **Article 2(b) of Directive 93\/13\/EEC:** Defines “consumer.” The Court confirms that the definition is based on whether the person is acting outside their trade, business, or profession at the time of the contract.<\/p>\n<p>This judgment provides important clarification on the scope of Directive 2011\/7\/EU and Directive 93\/13\/EEC, particularly regarding the definitions of “undertaking” and “consumer” in the context of legal services for setting up a company. It emphasizes that the status of a party must be assessed at the time the contract is concluded and that the intention to engage in commercial activity in the future does not automatically qualify a person as an “undertaking.”<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0352\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (dixi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#PU contre Parquet europ\u00e9en.#Pourvoi \u2013 Fonction publique \u2013 Parquet europ\u00e9en \u2013 R\u00e8glement (UE) 2017\/1939 \u2013 Article 17 \u2013 Procureurs europ\u00e9ens d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s \u2013 Proc\u00e9dure de recrutement \u2013 Refus de nomination d\u2019un candidat d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par un \u00c9tat membre \u2013 Recours en annulation \u2013 Article 263 TFUE \u2013 Recevabilit\u00e9 \u2013 D\u00e9lais de recours \u2013 Recours tardif \u2013 D\u00e9cision confirmative \u2013 Absence d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments nouveaux substantiels \u2013 Obligation de motivation.#Affaire C-352\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Court decision concerns a dispute over the rejection of a candidate for the position of European Delegated Prosecutor within the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The core issue revolves around the admissibility of an appeal against the EPPO’s decision not to appoint the candidate, specifically addressing whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limits and whether subsequent decisions by the EPPO constituted new and substantial elements that would justify a new appeal period.<\/p>\n<p>The structure of the act is as follows:<br \/>\n1. **Background:** The decision outlines the legal framework, including the Statute of EU officials and Regulation (EU) 2017\/1939 establishing the EPPO. It details the process for appointing and rejecting European Delegated Prosecutors.<br \/>\n2. **Facts of the Case:** It describes the candidate’s application, the EPPO’s initial rejection, the subsequent complaint filed by the candidate, and the EPPO’s final decision to reject the complaint.<br \/>\n3. **Tribunal Decision:** It summarizes the General Court’s decision to dismiss the candidate’s appeal as inadmissible due to the expiration of the appeal deadline and the confirmatory nature of the EPPO’s subsequent decisions.<br \/>\n4. **Appeal to the Court of Justice:** It presents the candidate’s arguments on appeal, claiming errors in the General Court’s interpretation of the law and insufficient reasoning.<br \/>\n5. **Court of Justice Analysis:** It analyzes the candidate’s arguments, focusing on whether the EPPO’s decisions contained new and substantial elements that would justify a new appeal period. The Court upholds the General Court’s decision, finding that the candidate’s appeal was indeed inadmissible.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 263 TFEU:** This article establishes the time limits for bringing an action for annulment before the Court of Justice. The Court emphasizes that failure to comply with these deadlines renders the contested act definitive.<br \/>\n* **Regulation (EU) 2017\/1939, Article 17:** This article outlines the criteria for appointing European Delegated Prosecutors and allows the EPPO to reject candidates who do not meet these criteria. The Court’s decision clarifies that the EPPO’s rejection of the candidate was based on a substantive assessment of these criteria.<br \/>\n* **Concept of “New and Substantial Elements”:** The Court reiterates its established case law that only the existence of new and substantial elements can justify the re-examination of a decision that has become final. The Court clarifies that the EPPO’s subsequent decisions did not contain such elements.<br \/>\n* **Right to Effective Judicial Protection:** The candidate argued that the General Court’s interpretation of the law violated his right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court rejects this argument, finding that the candidate’s failure to comply with the appeal deadlines was not a result of any error on the part of the General Court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0806\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Renco Valore SpA e.a. contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-806\/23 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (seventh chamber) regarding a dispute over State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). The case concerns the annulment of a decision by the European Commission concerning a scheme of tax advantages granted to companies in the Madeira Free Zone. The Commission considered that Portugal had implemented the aid scheme in violation of previous decisions, making it incompatible with the internal market.<\/p>\n<p>The structure of the judgment includes an overview of the appeal, the background of the dispute, the procedure before the General Court, the arguments of the parties, and the Court of Justice’s assessment. The Court examines three pleas raised by the appellants: (1) an error in interpreting the condition relating to the origin of profits subject to IRPM reduction, (2) an error in interpreting the condition relating to job creation or maintenance, and (3) a violation of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. The Court dismisses all three pleas, finding some inadmissible and others unfounded.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the judgment relate to the interpretation of the conditions for granting tax advantages in the Madeira Free Zone, particularly concerning the requirement that activities be “effectively and materially carried out in Madeira” and the creation or maintenance of jobs. The Court clarifies that the tax advantages are intended to compensate for the additional costs faced by companies in the Madeira Free Zone due to the region’s disadvantages. The judgment also emphasizes that Member States do not have complete discretion in interpreting the conditions for granting aid and that beneficiaries of aid implemented without prior notification cannot have legitimate expectations about its regularity.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0142\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.Familienstiftung v Finanzamt K\u00f6ln-West.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Free movement of capital \u2013 Inheritance and gift tax \u2013 Taxation of the inter vivos transfer of assets in order to set up a foundation \u2013 Family foundation with its seat in Liechtenstein \u2013 Coherence of the tax system.Case C-142\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The case revolves around a German tax law that treats family foundations located in Germany differently from those located in other EEA countries, specifically Liechtenstein, regarding gift tax. The CJEU was asked whether this difference in tax treatment is compatible with the free movement of capital as guaranteed by the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the parties involved. It then details the legal context, including relevant articles from the EEA Agreement, Directive 88\/361, and the German Law on inheritance tax and gift tax (ErbStG). The judgment describes the dispute in the main proceedings, which involves a family foundation in Liechtenstein contesting the gift tax imposed by the German tax authority. Finally, the court provides its consideration of the question referred and the ruling.<\/p>\n<p>The key provision at the heart of the judgment is Article 40 of the EEA Agreement, which prohibits restrictions on the movement of capital between contracting parties. The German tax law (ErbStG) distinguishes between family foundations established in Germany and those established abroad, particularly concerning the applicable tax class and allowances for gift tax purposes. German foundations benefit from a more favorable tax treatment because they are subject to a substitute inheritance tax levied every 30 years. The Court found that this difference in treatment constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital but may be justified to ensure the coherence of the tax system, provided it adheres to the principle of proportionality.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this judgment is its clarification on the balance between the free movement of capital within the EEA and the right of member states to maintain the coherence of their tax systems. The CJEU concluded that Germany’s tax law does not violate Article 40 of the EEA Agreement as long as the difference in tax treatment is proportionate. This means that the tax advantage given to domestic foundations must be offset by the substitute inheritance tax they are subject to, and the overall tax burden should not be disproportionately higher for foreign foundations.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0654\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.Inteligo Media SA v Autoritatea Na\u0163ional\u0103 de Supraveghere a Prelucr\u0103rii Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP).Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector \u2013 Directive 2002\/58\/EC \u2013 Article 13(1) and (2) \u2013 Unsolicited communications \u2013 Concept of communication \u2018for the purposes of direct marketing\u2019 \u2013 Obtaining electronic contact details \u2018in the context of the sale of a product or a service\u2019 \u2013 Registration on an online platform giving access to additional content \u2013 Sending of a daily newsletter via email \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2016\/679 \u2013 Article 6 \u2013 Lawfulness of processing \u2013 Article 95 \u2013 Relationship with Directive 2002\/58.Case C-654\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002\/58\/EC) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2016\/679). The case concerns a Romanian company, Inteligo Media, which was fined for processing customer data without consent when sending a daily newsletter. The Romanian court asked the CJEU for clarification on several aspects of EU data protection law.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies the conditions under which a company can send unsolicited marketing emails to its customers. It specifies what constitutes “direct marketing” and when an email address is obtained “in the context of the sale of a product or a service.” The Court also addresses the relationship between the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR, particularly regarding consent requirements and the powers of national supervisory authorities.<\/p>\n<p>Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:<\/p>\n<p>* **Direct Marketing:** The Court defines “direct marketing” broadly, including emails that promote the exhaustion of free content and encourage users to purchase a full subscription.<br \/>\n* **Context of Sale:** Obtaining an email address when a user creates a free account to access some free content and the possibility of paid content is considered “in the context of the sale of a service,” even if the user initially only accesses the free content.<br \/>\n* **ePrivacy vs. GDPR:** If the conditions of the ePrivacy Directive for sending marketing emails are met, the stricter consent requirements of the GDPR do not apply.<br \/>\n* **National Law:** The Court declined to rule on whether the Romanian law correctly transposed the concept of “direct marketing” from the ePrivacy Directive.<br \/>\n* **Supervisory Authority Obligations:** The Court did not answer the question regarding the obligations of a supervisory authority when imposing fines under the GDPR.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0525\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.OS v Orsz\u00e1gos Idegenrend\u00e9szeti F\u0151igazgat\u00f3s\u00e1g.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Immigration policy \u2013 Directive (EU) 2016\/801 \u2013 Conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of voluntary service \u2013 Refusal to renew a residence permit \u2013 Article 7(1)(e) \u2013 Sufficient resources \u2013 Supplementary conditions arising from the case-law of a national supreme court \u2013 Evidence \u2013 Principle of the primacy of EU law.Case C-525\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2016\/801, which concerns the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for purposes including voluntary service. The case specifically addresses the requirements for proving sufficient resources to obtain or renew a residence permit for voluntary service in Hungary. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which Member States can impose additional conditions beyond those explicitly stated in the Directive, particularly concerning the nature and origin of financial resources.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the preliminary ruling and the relevant parties. It then details the legal context, citing relevant articles from EU directives (2003\/109\/EC, 2004\/38\/EC, and 2016\/801) and Hungarian national law. The judgment describes the factual background of the case, the questions referred by the Hungarian court, and the CJEU’s analysis of these questions. The CJEU considers the admissibility of the questions, then addresses the substance, interpreting Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2016\/801 and the principle of primacy of EU law. Finally, the court provides a ruling and addresses the matter of costs.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions clarified by the CJEU are those related to Article 7(1)(e) of Directive 2016\/801. The Court rules that Member States cannot add extra requirements about the kind of resources a third-country national needs to show to prove they have enough money to live on. Specifically, a country can’t demand that the money be classified as income or assets, or that the person prove they own it permanently and without restrictions. The Court also emphasizes that if a national court’s previous rulings conflict with this interpretation of EU law, the national court must follow EU law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0250\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Commission europ\u00e9enne contre Royaume d’Espagne.#Manquement d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Transport ferroviaire \u2013 Directive 2012\/34\/UE \u2013 Article 4, paragraphe 2 \u2013 Ind\u00e9pendance de gestion du gestionnaire de l\u2019infrastructure \u2013 Conseils d\u2019administration des gestionnaires de l\u2019infrastructure compos\u00e9s en grande partie d\u2019agents de l\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Nominations et r\u00e9vocations soumises au pouvoir discr\u00e9tionnaire de l\u2019\u00c9tat.#Affaire C-250\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The Court’s judgment in Case C-250\/24 addresses whether Spain failed to properly implement EU law concerning the independence of railway infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. The European Commission brought the action against Spain, alleging deficiencies in transposing Directive 2012\/34\/EU, which establishes a single European railway area.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around four main complaints raised by the Commission. These relate to the management independence of railway entities, the system for setting infrastructure usage charges, and the implementation of incentives to reduce infrastructure costs. The Court examines each complaint, assessing whether Spain has met its obligations under Directive 2012\/34\/EU.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions relate to the independence of railway infrastructure managers (ADIF and ADIF-Alta Velocidad) and railway undertakings (Renfe). The Commission argued that Spain did not guarantee the management independence of these entities from the state, particularly concerning the composition of their boards and the setting of railway service fees. The Court ultimately rejected the Commission’s arguments, finding that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated a failure of Spain to comply with the Directive’s requirements regarding management independence.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0009\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#Sonasurf Internacional – Shipping, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) e.a. contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-9\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (seventh chamber) regarding a case concerning State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). The case revolves around tax advantages given to companies operating within the zone and whether these advantages were implemented by Portugal in compliance with previous decisions made by the European Commission.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses an appeal by Sonasurf Internacional and other companies against a decision of the General Court, which had rejected their challenge to a Commission decision finding that Portugal had illegally implemented the Madeira Free Zone aid scheme (Regime III) by violating conditions ensuring its compatibility with the internal market. The Court of Justice upholds the General Court’s decision, finding no errors in its legal reasoning.<\/p>\n<p>The main points of the judgment are:<br \/>\n– The Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the General Court’s decision.<br \/>\n– It finds that the General Court did not err in its assessment that the Commission’s decision did not impose a specific methodology (ETP and UTA) for calculating job creation.<br \/>\n– The Court also rejects the argument that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations were violated, as the companies failed to demonstrate that the Commission provided specific assurances regarding the compatibility of the aid scheme.<br \/>\n– The appealing companies are ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0013\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (septi\u00e8me chambre) du 13 novembre 2025.#AFG, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) contre Commission europ\u00e9enne.#Pourvoi \u2013 Aides d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Zone franche de Mad\u00e8re (Portugal) \u2013 Octroi d\u2019avantages fiscaux aux entreprises \u2013 R\u00e9gime d\u2019aides mis \u00e0 ex\u00e9cution par la R\u00e9publique portugaise \u2013 D\u00e9cisions C(2007) 3037 final et C(2013) 4043 final \u2013 D\u00e9cision prise par la Commission europ\u00e9enne sur le fondement de l\u2019article 108, paragraphe 2, premier alin\u00e9a, TFUE \u2013 Mise en \u0153uvre d\u2019une aide existante en violation d\u2019une condition assurant la compatibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019aide avec le march\u00e9 int\u00e9rieur.#Affaire C-13\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (seventh chamber) regarding a dispute over State aid granted in the Madeira Free Zone (Portugal). The case concerns the annulment of a decision by the European Commission regarding the aid scheme SA.21259 (2018\/C) (ex 2018\/NN) implemented by Portugal in favor of the Madeira Free Zone (ZFM) \u2013 Regime III.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses an appeal by AFG SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) against the decision of the General Court, which rejected its action for annulment of Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of the Commission’s decision. The Commission’s decision declared that the aid scheme “Zona Franca de Madeira (ZFM) \u2013 Regime III” was illegally implemented by Portugal in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU and was incompatible with the internal market. The decision required Portugal to recover the incompatible aid from the beneficiaries.<\/p>\n<p>The main points of contention in the appeal were whether the General Court erred in finding that the aid scheme was selective, whether it misinterpreted the conditions for granting tax reductions (specifically, the requirement that activities be “effectively and materially realized in Madeira”), and whether it violated the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and proportionality. The Court of Justice dismissed all the arguments raised by AFG SA, upholding the General Court’s decision and confirming the Commission’s power to order the recovery of illegal and incompatible aid.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0639\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2025.FLO VENEER d.o.o. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Taxation \u2013 Common system of value added tax (VAT) \u2013 Directive 2006\/112\/EC \u2013 Article 138(1) \u2013 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282\/2011 \u2013 Article 45a \u2013 Conditions for exemption in respect of intra-Community supplies of goods \u2013 Presumption \u2013 Requisite evidence.Case C-639\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the VAT Directive and Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011, specifically concerning the conditions for VAT exemption on intra-Community supplies of goods. The case revolves around a Croatian company, FLO VENEER, and a dispute with the Croatian Ministry of Finance regarding VAT exemption for oak logs sold to a buyer in Slovenia. The Croatian tax authority denied the VAT exemption because FLO VENEER allegedly did not provide sufficient evidence as required by Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies how tax authorities should assess evidence for VAT exemptions on intra-Community supplies. It emphasizes that a VAT exemption cannot be denied solely because the specific evidence outlined in Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011 is not provided. National tax authorities are obliged to assess all evidence presented to determine if goods were indeed dispatched or transported from one Member State to another within the EU, even if the conditions for presumption under Article 45a(1) are not met.<\/p>\n<p>The key takeaway is that while Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No. 282\/2011 provides a presumption of evidence for intra-Community supply, it is not exhaustive. Tax authorities must consider all evidence presented by the supplier to determine if the substantive requirements for VAT exemption are met. The CJEU reaffirms that formal requirements should not override the right to a VAT exemption if the core conditions of an intra-Community supply are satisfied, unless there is intentional tax evasion or the missing formality prevents conclusive evidence of the supply.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0272\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.HZ v Tribunalul Gala\u0163i.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Article 2 TEU \u2013 Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU \u2013 Principle of judicial independence \u2013 Directive 2003\/88\/EC \u2013 Weekly working time \u2013 Overtime worked by judges \u2013 National legislation providing for compensation by means of a rest period excluding financial compensation \u2013 Adequate remuneration.Case C-272\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of EU law related to judicial independence and working time, specifically in the context of a Romanian judge seeking financial compensation for overtime work.<\/p>\n<p>**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses whether national legislation can prohibit financial compensation for overtime worked by a judge due to staff shortages, where compensation is limited to rest periods. The CJEU clarifies the scope of judicial independence under Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU and the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, particularly concerning fair remuneration. It balances the need to protect judicial independence with the Member States’ discretion in managing public expenditure and addressing budgetary constraints. The court emphasizes that while financial compensation can be replaced by a rest period, the rest period should be available to use and the total remuneration should be adequate.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>* **Introduction:** Sets out the context of the request for a preliminary ruling and the relevant EU provisions.<br \/>\n* **Legal Context:** Details the relevant articles of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, and Directive 2003\/88\/EC (the Working Time Directive). It also outlines the relevant Romanian legislation, specifically Framework Law No. 153\/2017 and several Government Emergency Orders (OUG) that derogate from it.<br \/>\n* **The Dispute in the Main Proceedings and the Question Referred for a Preliminary Ruling:** Explains the factual background of the case, including the judge’s claim for compensation and the referring court’s question to the CJEU.<br \/>\n* **Consideration of the Question Referred:** This is the core of the judgment, where the CJEU analyzes the question and provides its interpretation of EU law. It discusses the scope of judicial independence, the importance of adequate remuneration for judges, and the conditions under which a Member State can derogate from general rules on remuneration due to budgetary constraints.<br \/>\n* **Costs:** Addresses the allocation of costs in the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\n<p>* **Judicial Independence:** The judgment reaffirms that judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law and is essential for ensuring the full application of EU law.<br \/>\n* **Adequate Remuneration:** It emphasizes that judges must receive a level of remuneration commensurate with the importance of their functions, protecting them from external interference or pressure.<br \/>\n* **Derogations:** The judgment acknowledges that Member States can adopt budgetary restriction measures affecting judges’ remuneration, but such measures must be provided for by law, justified by an objective in the general interest (such as eliminating an excessive government deficit), and proportionate.<br \/>\n* **Compensatory Rest:** The judgment states that compensating overtime with rest periods is acceptable if the judge can actually use the rest period and the overall remuneration remains commensurate with the judge’s functions.<br \/>\n* **Assessment Criteria:** The judgment provides guidance on assessing the adequacy of judges’ remuneration, including considering the economic, social, and financial situation of the Member State and comparing judges’ average remuneration with the average salary in that State.<\/p>\n<p>**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for practical use are those that outline the conditions under which a Member State can limit financial compensation for judges’ overtime work. Specifically:<\/p>\n<p>* Any derogating measure must be provided for by law and be objective, foreseeable, and transparent.<br \/>\n* It must be justified by an objective in the general interest, such as eliminating an excessive government deficit.<br \/>\n* It must be proportionate, meaning it is appropriate for achieving the objective, limited to what is strictly necessary, and not disproportionate to the objective.<br \/>\n* The judge must be able to actually use the compensatory rest period.<br \/>\n* The legislation must not undermine the commensurate relationship between a judge’s remuneration and the importance of their functions.<\/p>\n<p>These provisions provide a framework for assessing the legality of national measures that affect judges’ remuneration in the context of budgetary constraints.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0563\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2025.Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v PB Vi Goods GmbH.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of spirit drinks \u2013 Regulation (EU) 2019\/787 \u2013 Article 10(7) \u2013 Prohibition on using legal names for any beverage that does not comply with the requirements of the relevant categories \u2013 Gin \u2013 Beverage named \u2018non-alcoholic gin\u2019 \u2013 Article 12(1) \u2013 Allusions \u2013 Validity of Article 10(7) \u2013 Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union \u2013 Freedom to conduct a business \u2013 Principle of proportionality.Case C-563\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This judgment concerns the interpretation and validity of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019\/787 regarding the definition, description, presentation, and labeling of spirit drinks, specifically in relation to the use of the name “gin” for non-alcoholic beverages. The Court was asked to determine whether it is permissible to market a non-alcoholic beverage as “non-alcoholic gin” and whether the prohibition of such labeling infringes upon the freedom to conduct a business. The case originated from a dispute in Germany regarding the advertising of a beverage named “Virgin Gin Alkoholfrei” (non-alcoholic Virgin Gin).<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by the Landgericht Potsdam (Regional Court, Potsdam, Germany). First, it addresses whether Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019\/787, which prohibits the use of legal names for beverages that do not comply with the requirements of the relevant spirit drink category, is invalid due to an infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (freedom to conduct a business). Second, it seeks clarification on whether Article 10(7) or Article 12(1) of the same regulation should be interpreted as prohibiting the presentation or labeling of a non-alcoholic beverage as “non-alcoholic gin.” The Court concludes that Article 10(7) does prohibit the use of the name “non-alcoholic gin” for beverages that do not meet the requirements for gin, and that this prohibition is valid and does not infringe upon the freedom to conduct a business.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of the act is Article 10(7) of Regulation 2019\/787, which explicitly prohibits the use of spirit drink legal names for beverages that do not comply with the requirements of the relevant spirit drink category. The Court’s interpretation and validation of this article confirm that the term “gin” cannot be used for non-alcoholic beverages, even with the addition of the qualifier “non-alcoholic.” This is to prevent consumer confusion and protect the reputation of genuine gin.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0117\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 November 2025.JYSK Kereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti \u00c9lelmiszerl\u00e1nc-biztons\u00e1gi Hivatal.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Environment \u2013 Obligations of operators placing timber and timber products on the market \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 995\/2010 \u2013 Use, maintenance and regular evaluation of a due diligence system \u2013 Article 4(2) and (3) and Article 6 \u2013 Group of companies \u2013 Access of an operator to a due diligence system maintained and evaluated by its parent company or established by a monitoring organisation and used by that parent company.Case C-117\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), specifically Regulation (EU) No 995\/2010. The case revolves around a Hungarian subsidiary of a Danish company (JYSK) and whether it can rely on the due diligence system (DDS) of its parent company to comply with the EUTR, or if it needs its own, independent DDS. The Hungarian authorities had fined JYSK for not having its own DDS. The CJEU clarifies the obligations of operators under the EUTR, particularly concerning the use and maintenance of due diligence systems.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. It starts with an introduction outlining the request for a preliminary ruling and the relevant articles of the EUTR.<br \/>\n2. It then details the legal context, including relevant recitals and articles from Regulation No 995\/2010 and Implementing Regulation No 607\/2012. These sections define key terms like “operator” and “due diligence system” and outline the obligations of operators and monitoring organizations.<br \/>\n3. The judgment describes the dispute in the main proceedings, summarizing the arguments of JYSK and the Hungarian National Food Chain Safety Office.<br \/>\n4. It then presents the question referred by the Hungarian court, which asks whether it is sufficient for an operator to have access to a DDS maintained by its parent company or a monitoring organization used by its parent company.<br \/>\n5. The Court’s consideration of the question is the core of the judgment. It analyzes the wording, context, and objectives of the EUTR to determine the scope of an operator’s obligations.<br \/>\n6. Finally, the judgment provides the Court’s answer to the question, ruling that it is not sufficient for an operator to merely have access to a DDS maintained by its parent company; it must have its own DDS.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions clarified by this judgment are:<br \/>\n* **Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation No 995\/2010**: This article mandates that operators exercise due diligence when placing timber on the market and maintain and regularly evaluate their DDS. The judgment clarifies that “using” a DDS implies active behavior and adaptation to the operator’s specific commercial activity.<br \/>\n* **Article 6(1) of Regulation No 995\/2010**: This article outlines the elements of a DDS, including access to information, risk assessment, and risk mitigation procedures. The judgment emphasizes that these elements must pertain to the operator’s own activities.<br \/>\n* The judgment specifies that while operators can be assisted by third parties in establishing a DDS, they cannot simply rely on a DDS established and maintained by a parent company. The operator itself must actively use, maintain, and evaluate the DDS, unless it is using a DDS established by a monitoring organization.<br \/>\n* The Court underscores that the effectiveness of checks by competent authorities would be undermined if operators could simply share access to a DDS established by a third party. The operator must be able to demonstrate how it applies the DDS and takes decisions on risk mitigation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0004\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.BNP Paribas Public Sector SA v Single Resolution Board.Appeal \u2013 Economic and monetary policy \u2013 Economic and monetary union \u2013 Banking union \u2013 Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) \u2013 Single Resolution Fund (SRF) \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014 \u2013 Article 69(1) \u2013 Article 70(1) \u2013 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/81 \u2013 Article 7(1) to (3) \u2013 Sums paid as collateral backing irrevocable payment commitments \u2013 Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) refusing to return the sums paid.Case C-4\/24 P.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) regarding an appeal by BNP Paribas Public Sector SA against a judgment of the General Court. The case concerns the interpretation of EU regulations related to the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), specifically dealing with the return of collateral backing irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) made by credit institutions. The core issue is whether the Single Resolution Board (SRB) can refuse to return the collateral until the sums committed under the IPCs are paid in cash, especially when a credit institution exits the scope of the SRM. The Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, upholding the SRB’s position.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>1. **Background:** It outlines the legal context, including Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/81, which govern the SRM and SRF. It defines key terms like “available financial means” and details the rules for calculating and managing ex-ante contributions to the SRF, including the use of irrevocable payment commitments.<br \/>\n2. **Facts of the Case:** It describes the specific circumstances, including BNP Paribas Public Sector SA’s participation in the SRM, its irrevocable payment commitments to the SRF for multiple years, and its subsequent request for the return of collateral after its authorization was withdrawn. The SRB’s refusal to return the collateral until cash payments were made is central to the dispute.<br \/>\n3. **General Court Decision:** It summarizes the General Court’s judgment, which dismissed BNP Paribas’s action. The General Court supported the SRB’s interpretation that the collateral could be returned only after the corresponding cash amounts were paid, emphasizing the need to maintain the financial capacity and liquidity of the SRF.<br \/>\n4. **Appeal Arguments:** It presents the arguments made by BNP Paribas Public Sector SA in its appeal, supported by the French Republic and the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration bancaire fran\u00e7aise. These arguments focus on alleged errors of law in the interpretation of the relevant regulations and a failure to state reasons in the General Court’s judgment.<br \/>\n5. **Court of Justice Analysis:** It provides a detailed analysis of each of the appellant’s arguments, ultimately rejecting them. The Court emphasizes the importance of interpreting the regulations in a way that ensures the SRF’s financial stability and the principle of equal treatment among credit institutions.<br \/>\n6. **Decision:** The Court dismisses the appeal and orders BNP Paribas Public Sector SA to pay the costs.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 69 and 70 of Regulation No. 806\/2014:** These articles define the target level for the SRF and the rules for ex-ante contributions from credit institutions. They establish the obligation for institutions to contribute to the fund and allow for contributions to be made through irrevocable payment commitments.<br \/>\n* **Article 7 of Implementing Regulation 2015\/81:** This article specifies the conditions for calling irrevocable payment commitments and returning collateral. It states that recourse to IPCs should not affect the SRF’s financial capacity and liquidity and that collateral should be returned when the contribution linked to the IPC has been duly received.<\/p>\n<p>The Court’s interpretation of these provisions is crucial. It clarifies that even when a credit institution exits the scope of Regulation No. 806\/2014, it is still obligated to fulfill its contribution commitments to the SRF for the period it was under the regulation. The SRB can, therefore, withhold the return of collateral until the corresponding cash amounts are paid, ensuring the SRF’s financial stability and equal treatment among institutions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0678\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2025.JU v Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie Ia\u015fi.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Social policy \u2013 Directive 89\/391\/EEC \u2013 Safety and health of workers at work \u2013 Article 9 \u2013 Employers\u2019 obligations \u2013 Classification of workplaces according to whether they are exposing workers to risk factors to their safety and health \u2013 Article 11(6) \u2013 Proceedings before the authority responsible for safety and health protection at work \u2013 Effective judicial protection.Case C-678\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of Directive 89\/391\/EEC on the safety and health of workers at work. The case originates from Romania and concerns a dispute over the classification of a hospital worker’s job as exposing her to particular risks, which would entitle her to additional benefits. The CJEU clarifies the scope and limitations of the directive, particularly concerning the right of workers to appeal decisions related to workplace safety and health risks.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. It begins with an introduction outlining the request for a preliminary ruling and the parties involved.<br \/>\n2. It then presents the relevant legal context, including EU law (Directives 89\/391\/EEC and 2003\/88\/EC) and Romanian national law (Labour Code, Law No. 319\/2006, and various government decisions).<br \/>\n3. It describes the facts of the main proceedings, the questions referred by the Romanian court, and the Court’s analysis.<br \/>\n4. The Court addresses two key questions related to the interpretation of Directive 89\/391. The first question concerns whether the Directive precludes national legislation that prevents workers from directly appealing to the authority responsible for safety and health or from taking legal action if they believe their employer has not fulfilled obligations regarding the classification of workplaces as exposing workers to particular working conditions. The second question concerns whether Article 11(6) of Directive 89\/391 has direct effect and recognizes workers’ right to judicial protection if employers fail to fulfill their obligations.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the judgment are:<br \/>\n* **Clarification of the Scope of Directive 89\/391:** The CJEU clarifies that Directive 89\/391 aims to improve the safety and health of workers but does not require Member States to classify workplaces based on health risks to provide additional pension and annual leave rights.<br \/>\n* **Member States’ Discretion:** The judgment emphasizes that Member States have discretion in implementing systems for classifying workplaces according to health risks, as long as these systems do not undermine the obligations of employers under Directive 89\/391.<br \/>\n* **Annual Leave and Directive 2003\/88:** The CJEU notes that while granting additional annual leave may be justified to ensure worker safety and health, Directive 2003\/88\/EC only sets minimum requirements and does not prevent Member States from providing more favorable provisions.<br \/>\n* **Right to Assessment:** The Court acknowledges that workers have the right to challenge the inadequacy of measures taken by employers to ensure safety and health at work following a risk assessment.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0019\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2\u00a0April 2025 in Case E-19\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Failure to implement \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/1859 \u2013 Technical standards for registration as trade repositories)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 into its national law. The regulation concerns technical standards for the format of applications for registration and extension of registration as trade repositories. The EFTA Surveillance Authority brought the case against Iceland for not fulfilling its obligations under the EEA Agreement. The Court ruled that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>* It identifies the case (E-19\/24) and the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland).<br \/>\n* It states the object of the application: a declaration that Iceland failed to implement Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859.<br \/>\n* It mentions the relevant articles of the EEA Agreement and Annex IX.<br \/>\n* It lists the composition of the Court.<br \/>\n* The operative part of the judgment contains two points:<br \/>\n * A declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations.<br \/>\n * An order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The core of the judgment revolves around Iceland’s failure to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 into its national legal order, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1248\/2012, focusing on the format for applications related to trade repositories.<\/p>\n<p>**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement. This means Iceland was legally required to incorporate Regulation (EU) 2022\/1859 into its national law but did not do so by the time of the judgment. The judgment creates a binding obligation for Iceland to take necessary measures to comply with the ruling, meaning to implement the mentioned regulation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0020\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2\u00a0April 2025 in Case E-20\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Failure to implement \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/750 \u2013 Benchmarks in OTC derivative contracts)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement a specific EU regulation into its national law. The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The court ruled that Iceland failed to incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022\/750, which concerns benchmarks in Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivative contracts, into its legal system as required by the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority vs. Iceland), and the legal basis for the action (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). The operative part of the judgment contains two points: (1) a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/750 and (2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. This judgment does not introduce new regulations but enforces the existing obligation of Iceland to adopt EU regulations that are relevant to the EEA agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this judgment is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement. This highlights the importance of timely and complete implementation of EU regulations by EEA member states to ensure the integrity and proper functioning of the internal market. The judgment serves as a reminder to Iceland and other EEA member states of their obligations to transpose relevant EU legislation into their national legal orders.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0021\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2\u00a0April 2025 in Case E-21\/24\u00a0\u2013 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations \u2013 Failure to implement \u2013 Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/314 \u2013 Risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the EFTA Court regarding Iceland’s failure to implement a specific EU regulation into its national law. The core issue is Iceland’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The Court ruled that Iceland did not incorporate Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, which pertains to risk management procedures for the exchange of collateral, into its legal framework as required by the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment consists of a brief introduction outlining the case, the parties involved (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland), and the legal basis for the claim (Article 7 of the EEA Agreement). The operative part of the judgment contains two points: (1) a declaration that Iceland failed to fulfill its obligations by not implementing Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, and (2) an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgment refers to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023\/314, which amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016\/2251. The amendment concerns the date of application of certain risk management procedures related to the exchange of collateral. This likely involves setting or adjusting deadlines for when specific risk management protocols must be in place.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the legal requirement for EEA member states to incorporate relevant EU legislation into their national laws. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely implementation of EU regulations to maintain the integrity and consistency of the EEA.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C06202\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>State aid \u2013 Decision to raise no objections<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a state aid measure implemented by Norway. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to Norway’s compensation scheme for rail freight operators who suffered losses due to the closure of the Otta bridge. The scheme aims to compensate these operators for direct losses incurred between January 21, 2025, and April 4, 2025, due to the bridge’s closure caused by structural damage from icing. The aid will be provided in the form of grants, covering 95% of the losses, with a total budget of NOK 70 million.<\/p>\n<p>The decision provides information on the case number, decision number, the EFTA state involved (Norway), and the region affected (all regions). It outlines the legal basis for the scheme, which is Norway’s 2025 State budget. The objective of the scheme is clearly stated as compensating rail freight operators for losses directly resulting from the Otta bridge closure. The form of aid is grants, with an intensity of 95% of the losses covered. The duration of the compensation period is specified, and the relevant economic sector is identified as freight rail transport (NACE H \u2013 49.200). The granting authority is the Norwegian Railway Directorate.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for potential users are the eligibility criteria, which are rail freight operators who incurred direct losses due to the Otta bridge closure between January 21, 2025, and April 4, 2025. The level of compensation (95% of losses) and the responsible authority (Norwegian Railway Directorate) are also key pieces of information for those seeking to benefit from this scheme.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2024J0018\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 21\u00a0May 2025 in Case E-18\/24\u00a0\u2013 The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Energy v Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway (Environment \u2013 Directive\u00a02011\/92\/EU \u2013 Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment \u2013 Article\u00a03(1) \u2013 Projects covered by Annex\u00a0I \u2013 Extraction of petroleum and natural gas that will be sold to third parties \u2013 Principle of sincere cooperation \u2013 Requirement to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of EEA law)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the EFTA Court concerning a case between the Norwegian State and environmental organizations, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth Norway. The case revolves around the interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 2011\/92\/EU, specifically regarding the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas. The Court clarifies that these emissions constitute ‘effects’ of the extraction project and emphasizes the obligation of national courts to rectify failures in conducting thorough environmental impact assessments.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured into three key operative points. The first point clarifies that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion of extracted petroleum and natural gas, which are then sold to third parties, fall under the ‘effects’ that need to be assessed according to the EIA Directive. The second point addresses the responsibilities of national courts when a full environmental impact assessment has not been carried out. It states that national courts must, to the extent possible under national law, rectify the unlawful consequences of this failure. However, it allows for the possibility of regularizing the situation by conducting an assessment while the project is ongoing or even after completion, provided that national rules do not allow parties to circumvent EEA law and that the assessment considers the project’s environmental impact from its completion date, not just future impacts. The third point explicitly prohibits national courts from retroactively waiving the obligation to assess the effects under Article 3(1) of the EIA Directive.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of this judgment are those concerning the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in the environmental impact assessment and the conditions under which a deficient EIA can be regularized. The judgment makes it clear that the environmental impact assessment must include emissions from the combustion of the extracted resources, even if that combustion occurs elsewhere by third parties. Furthermore, the judgment provides clarity on how national courts should handle situations where a proper environmental impact assessment was not initially conducted, setting conditions for regularization that ensure the effectiveness of the EIA Directive and prevent circumvention of its requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C06201\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>State aid \u2013 Decision to raise no objections<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding a Norwegian state aid scheme. The Authority has decided not to raise objections to amendments made to Norway’s innovation and development scheme for news and current affairs media. The scheme aims to promote the development of editorial content and new solutions for its production, publishing, or dissemination. The aid is provided in the form of grants, with a maximum budget of NOK 30 million per year and an intensity of 40% (or 75% for small local news outlets).<\/p>\n<p>The decision concerns amendments to an existing scheme supporting innovation and development in Norwegian news and current affairs media. The scheme aims to foster the development of editorial content and the implementation of innovative solutions related to production, publishing, and dissemination, including projects designed to increase content consumption among the general population or specific groups. The aid is provided as grants. The standard aid intensity is capped at 40%, but small local news and current affairs media can receive up to 75%. The scheme is set to run from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2028. It targets a range of economic sectors, including publishing, radio broadcasting, television programming, and other information service activities.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for potential beneficiaries are the aid intensities (40% or 75% for small local news outlets), the eligible sectors defined by NACE codes, and the objectives of the scheme, which focus on innovation and development in editorial content and its dissemination. The duration of the scheme, until the end of 2028, is also a key factor for planning purposes.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025C0117\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No\u00a0117\/25\/COL of 9\u00a0July 2025 on the designation of a new Hearing Officer in certain competition proceedings [2025\/2308]<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision concerns the appointment of a new Hearing Officer within the context of certain competition proceedings. It replaces a previous Hearing Officer whose contract has ended, ensuring the continuity of the function. The decision designates Johanne F\u00f8rde as the new Hearing Officer, recognizing her qualifications and experience, while also formally terminating the appointment of Michael S\u00e1nchez Rydelski.<\/p>\n<p>The Decision consists of four articles. Article 1 appoints Johanne F\u00f8rde as Hearing Officer, referencing the foundational decision (No 442\/12\/COL) that outlines the role and responsibilities of Hearing Officers. Article 2 terminates the appointment of Michael S\u00e1nchez Rydelski. Article 3 mandates the publication of the appointment and termination in the Official Journal of the European Union, the EEA Supplement, and on the EFTA Surveillance Authority\u2019s website, and also requires informing the EFTA States and the European Commission. Article 4 states that the decision is authentic in English and enters into force on 9 July 2025.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this decision is the assurance of continued impartial oversight in competition proceedings within the EFTA framework. The appointment of Johanne F\u00f8rde ensures that there is a qualified individual to fulfill the duties of a Hearing Officer, as defined by Decision No 442\/12\/COL.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Act Review Review of Legal Acts Case C-491\/17, *Airbnb Ireland*, 2025 The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the term “traveller” under Directive 2015\/2302\/EU includes legal persons, such as non-profit associations booking travel for their members. This ensures that such associations can claim refunds and protections under the Directive, safeguarding the…<\/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-13254","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\/13254","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=13254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}