Legal Acts Review<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 – “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” PGI<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation officially recognizes “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. Article 1 formalizes this recognition by adding the name to the Union register. Article 2 provides a five-year transitional period for companies affiliated with FENAVIAN that have legally used the name for at least five years, allowing them to continue using it. Article 3 sets the regulation’s entry into force twenty days after publication.<\/p>\n<h5>Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2368 – Sudan Sanctions<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 by adding Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, Deputy Commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), to the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures due to activities undermining Sudan’s stability. Article 1 makes the amendment, Article 2 sets the entry into force, and the Annex details the reasons for Dagalo’s listing, including his role in the RSF’s campaign in Darfur and actions against civilians. Dagalo now faces an asset freeze and travel ban within the EU.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2339 – PGI \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 Amendment<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the protected geographical indication (PGI) \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 (Dunavska ravnina). Article 1 formally approves the Union amendment to the product specification of the PGI, and Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal. The regulation protects the amended product specification.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2345 – Dazomet Renewal<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation renews the approval of dazomet as an active substance in biocidal products of product-type 8 (wood preservatives). Article 1 renews the approval subject to conditions in the annex, while Article 2 sets the entry into force date. The annex outlines conditions for the renewed approval, including a minimum purity level and an expiry date of August 31, 2040, as well as conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing dazomet and labeling requirements for treated articles.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2333 – Hardwood Plywood Anti-Dumping Duty<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood from China and definitively collects provisional duties. It imposes duties of 43.3% for Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd and 86.8% for all other companies originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. It requires a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration to apply the individual duty rate.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2202 – Biocidal Product Family \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019 Amendment<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1434 to update administrative details and correct minor errors for the biocidal product family \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019. Article 1 replaces the authorization holder’s name with \u2018MC (Netherlands) 1 B.V.\u2019, and Article 2 replaces the annex with updated text, including administrative changes and minor adjustments. The annex contains the updated summary of product characteristics.<\/p>\n<h5>European Commission v. Ireland – Failure to Transpose Water Directive<\/h5>\n<p>The Court found that Ireland failed to fulfill its obligations regarding the definition of “water services”, environmental objectives, review of analyses, protection of drinking water, cost recovery, certain basic measures for groundwater protection, controls over abstraction of water, hydromorphological conditions of surface water, prevention of pollution incidents for groundwater, identification of pressures and assessment of impact on surface water, and monitoring of water status. The Court dismissed one part of the complaint related to hydromorphological conditions. Ireland was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<h5>Asylum and Temporary Protection Directives<\/h5>\n<p>This judgment clarifies that Directives 2011\/95 and 2013\/32, which govern international protection, apply to individuals who have been granted temporary protection under Directive 2001\/55. The Court clarifies that the right to apply for asylum (Article 17 of Directive 2001\/55) includes the right to apply for both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Member States cannot reject an application for subsidiary protection solely because the applicant already has temporary protection.<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Qualifications Judgement<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment clarifies that while Member States generally must consider qualifications obtained in other Member States, this obligation does not extend to qualifications that are not officially recognized or do not grant access to the profession in the issuing Member State.<\/p>\n<h5>Electronic Communications Code Interpretation<\/h5>\n<p>National regulatory authorities, when considering imposing access obligations to civil engineering assets under Article 72 of Directive 2018\/1972, must ensure that such obligations Do not hinder the emergence of a sustainable competitive market and are in the end-user’s interest. Are based on the nature of the problem identified in the market analysis. Are necessary and proportionate with regard to all the objectives set out in Article 3 of the Directive (promoting connectivity, competition, internal market development, and the interests of EU citizens), without any order of priority.<\/p>\n<h5>Stockholms Hamn AB case<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarifies that the definition of “undertaking” includes any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status or financing. This is crucial for determining whether Stockholms Hamn AB’s operation of the lock constitutes an economic activity subject to State aid rules.<\/p>\n<h5>Delegated Regulation Validity<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU concluded that the examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446.<\/p>\n<h5>Turniquets tariff classification<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU determined that the subheading 9018 90 84 of the CN does not cover tourniquets in the form of elastic straps fitted with a clip closure and a sliding buckle. It means that these items should be classified as textile articles.<\/p>\n<h5>Directive 2016\/680 interpretation<\/h5>\n<p>The Court clarified that EU law does not prevent national laws that allow the collection of biometric and genetic data from individuals suspected of intentional crimes, provided that the data collection adheres to the principles of necessity and proportionality.<\/p>\n<h5>Excise Duties Ruling<\/h5>\n<p>A company engaged in producing ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement, even if not yet officially authorized as a tax warehousekeeper, can be considered a “person liable” for excise duty on missing alcohol.<\/p>\n<h5>Failure to Fulfill Obligations Judgement<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU found Greece to be in violation of EU law for failing to adequately transpose Directive 2018\/958. This means that Greece’s existing laws did not sufficiently ensure that restrictions on regulated professions were properly assessed for proportionality, both when initially introduced and on an ongoing basis, and that all relevant regulatory bodies were subject to these requirements.<\/p>\n<h5>Amending Protocol Modifies Agreement between the EU and Switzerland<\/h5>\n<p>The main goals are to update the agreement to align with the newest OECD standards, broaden the scope of reportable financial products (including digital assets), prevent redundant reporting with the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), and reinforce collaboration on VAT collection and recovery. Additionally, the protocol introduces measures for mutual assistance in the recovery of VAT claims between EU member states and Switzerland.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway: Cybersecurity Act<\/h5>\n<p>The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 5cp of Annex XI and point 48 of Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) 2019\/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526\/2013 (Cybersecurity Act)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland<\/h5>\n<p>The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the core issue of Iceland’s failure to transpose Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law.<\/p>\n<h5>Advisory Opinion Requested from the EFTA Court<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court’s advisory opinion will clarify the extent to which national laws can impose time limits on claims for remuneration interest without undermining the consumer protection goals of EU legislation in the fields of insurance and financial services.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway<\/h5>\n<p>The core of the document lies in its assertion that Norway has failed to meet its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018\/151.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway, Action<\/h5>\n<p>The document is the description of core provision at stake is Norway’s obligation to implement Directive (EU) 2016\/1148, which aims to achieve a high common level of security of network and information systems across the European Union and the EEA.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland, Action<\/h5>\n<p> The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court to declare that Iceland has failed to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019\/290 into its national law, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This regulation is crucial for ensuring the proper registration and reporting of producers of electrical and electronic equipment within the EEA, and its absence in Iceland’s legal order represents a breach of its obligations under the EEA Agreement.<\/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_202501802\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025\/1802 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive\u00a02011\/65\/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead in high melting temperature solders<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502363\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025\/2363 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive\u00a02011\/65\/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead in glass or ceramic components<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502364\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025\/2364 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive\u00a02011\/65\/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead as an alloying element in steel, aluminium and copper<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502359\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2359 of 8\u00a0July 2025 supplementing Directive (EU)\u00a02024\/1788 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying a methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emissions savings from low-carbon fuels<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R1353\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1353 of 1\u00a0July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/2534 on household tumble dryers regarding information on repairability and clarifying some aspects of the measurement and calculation methods, the product information sheet, the technical documentation and the verification procedure<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502335\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2335 of 20\u00a0November 2025 setting the reference CO2 emissions for the reporting period of the year 2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502338\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2338 of 20\u00a0November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02016\/100 laying down implementing technical standards specifying the joint decision process with regard to the application for certain prudential permissions pursuant to Regulation (EU) No\u00a0575\/2013 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_202502358\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2358 of 20\u00a0November 2025 laying down rules on certification schemes, certification bodies, and audits under Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/3012 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_202502289\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2289 of 13\u00a0November 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the format for the reporting of data as well as the assessment methods and operational conditions for the collection and treatment of waste batteries<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2341\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 of 13\u00a0November 2025 entering the geographical indication Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2341\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 of 13\u00a0November 2025 entering the geographical indication Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 officially recognizes “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the European Union. This means that the name “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” can only be used for products originating from a specific geographical area and produced according to defined standards.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of three articles. Article 1 formally enters the geographical indication \u2018Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge\u2019 into the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 grants a five-year transitional period for companies affiliated to FENAVIAN that have been legally using the name \u2018Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge\u2019 for at least five years prior to the publication date of the application, allowing them to continue using the name for a limited time. Article 3 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143, which sets the framework for geographical indications.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is Article 2, which provides a transitional period for certain companies to continue using the name “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” even if they are located outside the designated geographical area. This is a temporary exception to protect businesses that have a history of using the name, while still ensuring that the PGI status is ultimately respected.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2368\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2368 of 20 November 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 concerning restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2368 amends Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 by adding one individual to the list of those subject to restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan. This regulation directly implements the existing framework for sanctions related to the situation in Sudan. The addition is based on the gravity of the situation and the individual’s role in actions threatening the peace, stability, or security of Sudan.<\/p>\n<p>The structure of the regulation is simple: it has two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 is amended as per the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies the regulation’s entry into force, which is the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and confirms its binding and directly applicable nature in all Member States. The Annex adds a new entry to the list of natural persons subject to sanctions.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the inclusion of Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, Deputy Commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), to the list of sanctioned individuals. The reasons for his listing include his pivotal role in the RSF campaign in Darfur, his supervision of military operations, his orders for the killing and execution of civilians, and his leadership in RSF actions against civilians in El Fasher. Furthermore, his association with Al Junaid Multi Activities Co Ltd, which is accused of procuring military equipment for the RSF, is also cited as a reason for the sanctions. This addition means that Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo is now subject to an asset freeze and travel ban within the European Union.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2339\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2339 of 13\u00a0November 2025 on the approval of a Union amendment to the product specification of the protected geographical indication \u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430 pursuant to of Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2339 approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the protected geographical indication (PGI) \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 (Dunavska ravnina), which refers to a specific geographical region. The approval follows the procedure laid down in Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143 on geographical indications. Since no objections were received, the amendment is now officially recognized at the Union level.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasons for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally approves the Union amendment to the product specification of the PGI \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 as published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal. The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation does not introduce new provisions but rather approves an amendment to existing specifications.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is Article 1, which legally recognizes and protects the amended product specification for \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 within the EU. This means that the updated standards and characteristics of products from this region, as defined in the amended specification, are now officially endorsed and protected against misuse or imitation within the European Union.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2340\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2340 of 13\u00a0November 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Yenice Ihlamur Bal\u0131 (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2345\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2345 of 19\u00a0November 2025 renewing the approval of dazomet as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No\u00a0528\/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2345 renews the approval of dazomet as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 (wood preservatives) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528\/2012. The regulation concludes that dazomet-containing products can still meet the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528\/2012, subject to certain conditions. It sets specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing dazomet and for the placing on the market of treated articles.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the approval of dazomet is renewed subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the conditions for the renewed approval of dazomet. It includes the common and IUPAC names, identification numbers, minimum degree of purity (96%), expiry date of approval (August 31, 2040), and product type (8) for dazomet. It also outlines specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing dazomet, focusing on exposure, risks, efficacy, and labeling requirements for treated articles. Furthermore, it sets a deadline of March 1, 2026, for compliance with labeling requirements for treated articles containing dazomet.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for users are the conditions outlined in the Annex. These include the need for product assessments to address exposures, risks, and efficacy, specific instructions for use and precautions on treated article labels, and the deadline of March 1, 2026, for ensuring that treated articles placed on the market are appropriately labeled according to Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528\/2012.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2333\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2333 of 19\u00a0November 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2333, which imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The regulation also definitively collects the provisional duty that was previously imposed. This action follows an anti-dumping investigation initiated in October 2024 after a complaint by the Greenwood Consortium, representing the Union industry of hardwood plywood.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation is structured into several sections, covering the procedure, product concerned, dumping, injury, causation, level of measures, Union interest, definitive anti-dumping measures, and final provisions. It details the steps taken during the investigation, including the imposition of provisional measures, consultations with interested parties, and verification visits to companies. The regulation addresses claims made by various parties, including exporting producers, importers, and users, and explains the Commission’s decisions regarding product scope, sampling, dumping margin calculations, injury assessment, and Union interest. It also sets the definitive anti-dumping duty rates for specific companies and all other imports from China.<\/p>\n<p>Key provisions of the regulation include the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties of 43.3% for Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd and 86.8% for all other companies originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The regulation specifies the conditions for applying the individual duty rate, including the requirement for a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration. It also addresses the monitoring of imports of plywood with outer plies made of coniferous wood or bamboo and with a core containing plies of hardwood. The regulation also provides for the definitive collection of provisional duties and addresses the issue of retroactivity.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2202\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2202 of 22\u00a0October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/1434 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15, and correcting that Regulation<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2202, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1434. The core function of this regulation is to update the administrative details and correct minor errors related to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family known as \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019. The changes include updating the authorisation holder’s name due to a company acquisition and incorporating administrative changes such as the addition of manufacturers and address updates.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces the previous authorisation holder’s name with \u2018MC (Netherlands) 1 B.V.\u2019, while reaffirming the authorisation number and its validity period. Article 2 replaces the entire annex of the previous regulation with a fully updated text, which includes administrative changes and minor editorial and layout adjustments. Article 3 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex contains the summary of product characteristics for the biocidal product family \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019, detailing administrative information, product family composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, and general directions for use.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for users of this regulation are the updated details of the authorisation holder and the revised summary of product characteristics (SPC) in the Annex. The SPC provides crucial information on the product’s composition, approved uses, application rates, user categories, and necessary risk mitigation measures. Users should consult the updated SPC to ensure they are compliant with the latest conditions of use, particularly regarding safety measures and application instructions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2262\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Regulation (EU) 2025\/2262 of 11\u00a0November 2025 amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/826 to clarify definitions and some aspects of the measurement conditions and amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/2533 in relation to the methodology for calculating the average final moisture content, the identification and availability of spare parts and of repair information among other aspects<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0204\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.European Commission v Ireland.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Environment \u2013 Directive 2000\/60\/EC \u2013 Community action in the field of water policy \u2013 Failure to transpose fully and correctly.Case C-204\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This judgment addresses an action brought by the European Commission against Ireland for failing to correctly and fully transpose several articles and annexes of Directive 2000\/60\/EC, which establishes a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. The Commission identified 14 specific areas where it believed Ireland had not met its obligations under the Directive.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around these 14 complaints, each addressing a specific provision or annex of Directive 2000\/60\/EC. For each complaint, the Court presents the arguments of both the Commission and Ireland, followed by the Court’s findings. The complaints cover a range of issues, including the definition of “water services,” environmental objectives for groundwater and protected areas, review of analyses of water characteristics, protection of water used for drinking, cost recovery for water services, and specific measures related to water protection and pollution control.<\/p>\n<p>The Court found that Ireland failed to fulfill its obligations regarding the following: the definition of “water services” (Article 2(38)), environmental objectives (Article 4(2)), review of analyses (Article 5(2)), protection of drinking water (Article 7(3)), cost recovery (Article 9(2)), certain basic measures for groundwater protection (Article 11(3)(a) to (d)), controls over abstraction of water (Article 11(3)(e)), hydromorphological conditions of surface water (Article 11(3)(i)), prevention of pollution incidents for groundwater (Article 11(3)(l)), identification of pressures and assessment of impact on surface water (Annex II, points 1.4 and 1.5), and monitoring of water status (Annex V, points 1.3.1 to 1.3.5 and point 2.4.5). The Court dismissed one part of the complaint related to hydromorphological conditions. Ireland was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62025CJ0195\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2025.AA and\u00a0Others v Migrationsverket.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Asylum policy \u2013 Area of freedom, security and justice \u2013 Refugee status or subsidiary protection status \u2013 Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection \u2013 Directive 2001\/55\/EC \u2013 Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons \u2013 Articles 17 and 19 \u2013 Concept of \u2018application for asylum\u2019 \u2013 Article 3(1) \u2013 Grant of subsidiary protection status to a person enjoying temporary protection \u2013 Directive 2011\/95\/EU \u2013 Article 18 \u2013 Directive 2013\/32\/EU \u2013 Article 33(2) \u2013 Direct effect.Case C-195\/25.<\/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 several directives related to asylum and temporary protection. The case revolves around the rights of individuals enjoying temporary protection in a Member State to also apply for and be considered for refugee status or subsidiary protection status. The CJEU clarifies the relationship between the temporary protection regime and the broader system of international protection.<\/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 legal context.<br \/>\n2. It identifies the EU directives in question: Directive 2001\/55\/EC on temporary protection, Directive 2011\/95\/EU on international protection, and Directive 2013\/32\/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection.<br \/>\n3. It summarizes the facts of the case, the questions referred by the national court (F\u00f6rvaltningsr\u00e4tten i G\u00f6teborg, migrationsdomstolen, Sweden), and the arguments presented by the parties involved.<br \/>\n4. It provides the Court’s reasoning and answers to the questions, interpreting the relevant articles of the directives.<br \/>\n5. Finally, it states the Court’s decision.<\/p>\n<p>The key provisions and changes clarified by this judgment are:<br \/>\n* **Applicability of Directives 2011\/95 and 2013\/32:** The CJEU confirms that Directives 2011\/95 and 2013\/32, which govern international protection, apply to individuals who have been granted temporary protection under Directive 2001\/55.<br \/>\n* **Right to Apply for International Protection:** The Court clarifies that the right to apply for asylum (Article 17 of Directive 2001\/55) includes the right to apply for both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Member States cannot reject an application for subsidiary protection solely because the applicant already has temporary protection.<br \/>\n* **Direct Effect:** The CJEU states that Article 18 of Directive 2011\/95 and Article 33 of Directive 2013\/32 have direct effect. This means that individuals can rely on these articles in national courts if the national legislation is not in conformity with them. If national law cannot be interpreted in a way that is consistent with these EU law provisions, national courts must disapply the conflicting national law.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is that Member States cannot reject an application for subsidiary protection solely because the applicant already has temporary protection. The Court emphasizes that Member States must examine whether the applicant qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status, regardless of their temporary protection status. This ensures that individuals are not denied the full protection they may be entitled to under EU law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0340\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.EW and LO v Ministero dell\u2019Istruzione e del Merito and Ministero dell’Universit\u00e0 e della Ricerca.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Free movement of persons \u2013 Articles 45 and 49 TFEU \u2013 Recognition of professional qualifications \u2013 Right to pursue the profession of a support teacher in a Member State \u2013 Nationals of that Member State who have obtained evidence of formal qualifications issued by a private higher education institute in another Member State \u2013 Formal qualification which is not legally recognised and does not give access to the corresponding profession in the latter Member State \u2013 Obligation on the first Member State to take into consideration all of the diplomas, certificates and other evidence which the person concerned holds \u2013 Derogation.Joined Cases C-340\/24 and C-442\/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 recognition of professional qualifications, specifically for the profession of a support teacher. The case revolves around Italian nationals who obtained a qualification from a private higher education institute in Spain and were denied recognition of that qualification in Italy. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which a host Member State (Italy) is obligated to recognize qualifications obtained in another Member State (Spain), especially when those qualifications are not officially recognized in the issuing Member State.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>* The judgment addresses two requests for a preliminary ruling from an Italian court regarding the interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2005\/36\/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications.<br \/>\n* It examines whether Italy is obliged to recognize a “specialisation in learning support for special needs” qualification obtained in Spain from Universidad Cardenal Herrera \u2013 CEU, a private university.<br \/>\n* The Italian authority rejected the recognition because the Spanish authorities indicated that the qualification was not an official one in Spain and did not allow the holder to pursue the regulated profession of a specialized primary school teacher in Spain.<br \/>\n* The CJEU reformulates the question to address the core issue: whether Articles 45 and 49 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) impose an obligation on the host Member State to consider qualifications that are not legally recognized in the issuing state.<br \/>\n* The Court refers to established case law that typically requires host Member States to consider all relevant diplomas and experience. However, it distinguishes the present case because the qualification in question is not officially recognized in Spain and does not grant access to the profession there.<br \/>\n* The CJEU concludes that EU law does not oblige the host Member State to recognize qualifications that are not recognized in the home Member State. However, the host Member State remains free to consider such qualifications during the comparative examination of the applicant’s credentials.<\/p>\n<p>**Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n<p>* **Recognition of Qualifications:** The judgment clarifies that while Member States generally must consider qualifications obtained in other Member States, this obligation does not extend to qualifications that are not officially recognized or do not grant access to the profession in the issuing Member State.<br \/>\n* **Mutual Trust:** The principle of mutual trust among Member States regarding professional qualifications does not apply when the qualification is issued by a private institution without proper authorization or does not attest to a recognized professional qualification in the home Member State.<br \/>\n* **Host Member State Discretion:** The host Member State retains the discretion to consider non-recognized qualifications, but it is not obligated to do so.<br \/>\n* **Applicable Articles:** The judgment specifies that Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, concerning the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment, are relevant in cases where Directive 2005\/36\/EC does not apply.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0327\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 European Electronic Communications Code \u2013 Directive (EU) 2018\/1972 \u2013 Access remedies imposed on undertakings with significant market power \u2013 Article 72 \u2013 Obligations of access to civil engineering assets \u2013 Conditions.Case C-327\/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 the European Electronic Communications Code, specifically Directive (EU) 2018\/1972. The case revolves around a dispute in Germany regarding access obligations to civil engineering assets imposed on Telekom Deutschland GmbH, a telecommunications company with significant market power. The core issue is whether the German regulatory authority, when considering imposing obligations for access to civil engineering assets, should only consider the impact on market competition and end-user interests, or if it can also consider broader objectives outlined in the Directive, such as promoting connectivity and developing the internal market.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment interprets Articles 72 and 73 of Directive 2018\/1972.<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 72:** Deals with access to civil engineering assets (buildings, cables, poles, etc.). It allows national regulatory authorities to impose obligations on undertakings to provide access to these assets if denying access would hinder market competition and harm end-user interests.<br \/>\n* **Article 73:** Concerns access to specific network elements and associated facilities.<\/p>\n<p>The CJEU clarifies the relationship between these articles, emphasizing that Article 72 can be used as a “self-standing remedy” to impose access specifically to civil engineering assets, while Article 73 is more of an “ancillary remedy” related to network access or electronic communication services.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment also refers to Article 3 of the Directive, which outlines general objectives such as promoting connectivity, competition, internal market development, and the interests of EU citizens.<\/p>\n<p>**Key Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\n<p>The main point of clarification is whether national regulatory authorities, when deciding on access obligations for civil engineering assets, can consider the broader objectives of Article 3 of the Directive. The CJEU concludes that they must consider all the objectives of Article 3, not just competition and end-user interests.<\/p>\n<p>**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n<p>The most important takeaway from this judgment is that national regulatory authorities, when considering imposing access obligations to civil engineering assets under Article 72 of Directive 2018\/1972, must ensure that such obligations:<\/p>\n<p>1. Do not hinder the emergence of a sustainable competitive market and are in the end-user’s interest.<br \/>\n2. Are based on the nature of the problem identified in the market analysis.<br \/>\n3. Are necessary and proportionate with regard to all the objectives set out in Article 3 of the Directive (promoting connectivity, competition, internal market development, and the interests of EU citizens), without any order of priority.<\/p>\n<p>This means that regulators have a broad mandate to consider various factors when making decisions about access to civil engineering assets in the telecommunications sector.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0401\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Staten genom Sj\u00f6fartsverket v Stockholms Hamn AB.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 State aid \u2013 Agreement concluded before the accession of the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union \u2013 Compensation for the loss of revenue arising from the abolition of passage fees for a lock \u2013 Concept of aid \u2013 Concept of undertaking \u2013 Economic activity \u2013 Existing or new aid.Case C-401\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a preliminary ruling concerning State aid. The case revolves around compensation paid by the Swedish Maritime Administration to Stockholms Hamn AB for abolishing lock passage fees. The core issue is whether this compensation constitutes unlawful State aid under EU law.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>* It begins by outlining the legal context, referencing Article 107 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) concerning State aid, the Act of Accession of Sweden to the EU, and Regulation 2015\/1589 defining “existing aid.”<br \/>\n* It details the factual background of the dispute, including the agreement between the Maritime Administration and Stockholms Hamn AB, the terms of the compensation, and the reasons for the legal action.<br \/>\n* The judgment then addresses the questions posed by the referring Swedish court, focusing on whether the compensation constitutes an advantage, whether it should be considered existing aid, and whether subsequent extensions and adjustments to the agreement alter its status to “new aid.”<br \/>\n* Finally, the CJEU provides answers to the referring court, clarifying the interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the judgment are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Definition of “Undertaking”**: The CJEU clarifies that the definition of “undertaking” includes any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status or financing. This is crucial for determining whether Stockholms Hamn AB’s operation of the lock constitutes an economic activity subject to State aid rules.<br \/>\n* **Application of the Altmark Criteria**: The judgment refers to the Altmark criteria, which outline conditions under which compensation for public service obligations does not constitute State aid. The referring court must assess whether the compensation meets these criteria, particularly regarding the absence of overcompensation.<br \/>\n* **Classification of “Existing Aid”**: The CJEU clarifies that the compensation, if considered aid, qualifies as “existing aid” because it was implemented before Sweden’s accession to the EU. The judgment specifies that Article 144 of the Act of Accession does not apply in this case, as it concerns agricultural products.<br \/>\n* **Alterations to Existing Aid**: The judgment explains that the extensions and adjustments to the compensation agreement do not necessarily transform it into “new aid.” Only substantial alterations that affect the compatibility assessment would lead to such a reclassification. Automatic extensions and adjustments based on predefined criteria in the original agreement are less likely to be considered substantial alterations.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0617\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Customs union \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013 \u2013 Union Customs Code \u2013 Article 24(d) and Article 211(2) \u2013 Delegation of power to the European Commission \u2013 Power to \u2018supplement\u2019 a legislative act \u2013 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446 \u2013 Article 172(1) and (2) \u2013 Validity \u2013 Retroactive effect of an inward processing authorisation.Case C-617\/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 validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446, which supplements the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013). The case originated from a dispute in Germany concerning a company’s application for a retroactive inward processing authorisation and the Main Customs Office’s rejection of that application. The referring court questioned whether the Commission exceeded its powers by limiting the retroactive effect of such authorisations in time.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses whether the Commission exceeded the limits of its delegated powers under Article 24(d) and Article 212(a) of the Customs Code by stipulating that a retroactive inward processing authorisation can only take effect from the date the application was accepted, or exceptionally, one year prior. The Court clarifies the distinction between the powers to “supplement” and “amend” a legislative act, noting that the Commission’s power in this case was to supplement the Customs Code. It finds that Article 24(d) empowers the Commission to specify when a decision takes effect from a date different from when the applicant receives it. The Court also concludes that limiting the retroactive effect of authorisations does not alter an essential rule of the Customs Code and serves to ensure clarity, legal certainty, and equal treatment.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also examines whether the statement of reasons for the contested provision satisfies the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. It finds that recital 14 of Delegated Regulation 2015\/2446 provides sufficient reasoning, as it indicates the need to thoroughly identify cases where a decision should take effect from a different date for the sake of clarity and legal certainty. Ultimately, the Court concludes that the examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0631\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Servoprax GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Customs union \u2013 Regulation (EEC) No 2658\/87 \u2013 Tariff classification \u2013 Common Customs Tariff \u2013 Combined Nomenclature \u2013 Classification under subheading 9018 90 84 \u2013 Tourniquets \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013 \u2013 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446 \u2013 Second sentence of Article 252 \u2013 Validity.Case C-631\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the tariff classification of tourniquets. The central issue is whether these tourniquets, specifically elastic straps with a clip closure used to restrict blood flow, should be classified under subheading 9018 90 84 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN), which covers medical instruments and appliances, or under a different subheading, specifically 6307 90 98, relating to other made-up textile articles. The case originated in Germany, where Servoprax GmbH disputed the customs office’s decision to classify their imported tourniquets as textile articles, which incurred a higher duty rate.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by the German court. The first concerns the interpretation of the CN regarding the classification of tourniquets. The court examines the wording of heading 9018, its context within the CN, and relevant explanatory notes. It considers whether the tourniquets meet the criteria for medical instruments, particularly regarding their design, precision, and intended use. The second question, contingent on the first, addresses the validity of Article 252 of Delegated Regulation 2015\/2446, which retroactively made Binding Tariff Information (BTI) binding on the holder, a point disputed by Servoprax.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the court’s ruling on the first question: the CJEU determined that the subheading 9018 90 84 of the CN does not cover tourniquets in the form of elastic straps fitted with a clip closure and a sliding buckle, intended to be placed on the arm of a patient to compress his or her veins in order to block the patient\u2019s blood circulation. The Court reasoned that to be classified under heading 9018, goods must be characterized by the finish of their manufacture and a high degree of precision. The Court found that the tourniquets at issue are of a very simple design, being elastic straps fitted with a clip closure and a sliding buckle, intended to be placed on the arm of a patient to compress his or her veins in order to block the patient\u2019s blood circulation and should be classified as textile articles.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0057\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.JH v Policejn\u00ed prezidium.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data \u2013 Directive (EU) 2016\/680 \u2013 Article 4(1)(c) and (e) \u2013 Minimisation of data processing \u2013 Storage limitation of personal data \u2013 Article 10 \u2013 Collection and storage of biometric and genetic data \u2013 Strict necessity \u2013 Article 6(a) \u2013 Obligation to make a distinction between personal data of different categories of persons \u2013 National legislation which provides for the collection of biometric and genetic data of any person suspected or accused of having committed an intentional criminal offence \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Appropriate time limits for erasure or for a periodic review of the need for the storage of those data \u2013 No maximum time limit for storage \u2013 Assessment of the need for the storage of biometric and genetic data by the police on the basis of internal rules \u2013 Article 8(2) \u2013 Lawfulness of the processing of those data \u2013 Concept of \u2018Member State law\u2019 \u2013 Whether national case-law may be classified as \u2018Member State law\u2019.Case C-57\/23.<\/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 Directive (EU) 2016\/680, which deals with the protection of personal data processed by law enforcement authorities. The case revolves around a Czech citizen, JH, whose biometric and genetic data were collected by the police in connection with a criminal investigation. The Czech court sought clarification from the CJEU on whether the Czech legislation, which allows for the collection and storage of such data, is compatible with the EU directive.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the case and the questions referred by the Czech court.<br \/>\n2. It then details the relevant legal context, including the specific articles of Directive 2016\/680 and the relevant provisions of Czech law.<br \/>\n3. It describes the facts of the main proceedings, including the criminal proceedings against JH and the legal challenges he brought against the collection and storage of his data.<br \/>\n4. It presents the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Czech court.<br \/>\n5. It provides the CJEU\u2019s analysis and answers to each of the questions, including interpretations of Articles 4, 6, 8, and 10 of Directive 2016\/680.<br \/>\n6. Finally, it concludes with the CJEU\u2019s ruling, providing specific answers to the questions raised by the Czech court.<\/p>\n<p>The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable in this case, because this is the interpretation of the existing act, not the new act.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<br \/>\n* **Collection of Biometric and Genetic Data**: The Court clarified that EU law does not prevent national laws that allow the collection of biometric and genetic data from individuals suspected of intentional crimes, provided that the data collection adheres to the principles of necessity and proportionality.<br \/>\n* **Data Storage and Retention**: The Court ruled that there is no need for national laws to set a maximum storage period for biometric and genetic data. However, these laws must have appropriate time limits for regularly reviewing whether keeping the data is still necessary.<br \/>\n* **Definition of \u201cMember State Law\u201d**: The Court clarified that the term \u201cMember State law\u201d can include both statutes and court decisions, as long as they are clear, accessible, and predictable.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0570\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Transilvania Master Insolv IPURL, en tant d\u2019administrateur judiciaire d\u2019 Ecoserv SRL v Direc\u0163ia General\u0103 Regional\u0103 a Finan\u0163elor Publice Cluj and\u00a0Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Excise duties \u2013 Directive 2008\/118\/EC \u2013 Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) \u2013 Person liable to pay excise duty \u2013 Quantity of ethyl alcohol missing from a company\u2019s business assets \u2013 Managing director of a company guilty of embezzlement and of a failure to make entries in the accounts \u2013 Determination of the person liable to pay excise duty \u2013 More than one person liable \u2013 Effect of a judgment of a criminal court delivered in respect of civil matters, finding the managing director solely liable.Case C-570\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 2008\/118\/EC on excise duties, specifically regarding who is liable to pay excise duty when goods go missing from a tax warehouse. The case originates from Romania and involves a company, Ecoserv SRL, that was authorized to produce ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement. A quantity of alcohol went missing, and the Romanian tax authorities sought to recover excise duties from Ecoserv. The company argued that its managing director was solely responsible, as he had been convicted of embezzlement for selling the missing alcohol for his own benefit.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling clarifies the scope of Article 8(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2008\/118\/EC, stating that a company engaged in producing ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement, even if not yet officially authorized as a tax warehousekeeper, can be considered a “person liable” for excise duty on missing alcohol. It also clarifies that a national court is not bound by a criminal court’s judgment that holds an individual employee or manager solely liable for damages to the state budget due to misappropriation of goods.<\/p>\n<p>The CJEU interprets Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) of Directive 2008\/118 to mean that a company can be held liable for excise duties on missing goods, even if its employee was convicted of stealing those goods. The company’s liability as an authorized warehousekeeper is objective and based on its participation in an economic activity. The court emphasizes that excise duties become chargeable when goods leave a duty suspension arrangement, making the authorized warehousekeeper liable for payment. The judgment of a criminal court regarding civil liability does not override the tax obligations under EU law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0518\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (huiti\u00e8me chambre) du 20 novembre 2025.#Commission europ\u00e9enne contre R\u00e9publique hell\u00e9nique.#Manquement d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Article 258 TFUE \u2013 Directive (UE) 2018\/958 \u2013 \u00c9valuation par les \u00c9tats membres du caract\u00e8re proportionn\u00e9 des r\u00e9glementations nationales limitant l\u2019acc\u00e8s aux professions r\u00e9glement\u00e9es ou leur exercice \u2013 Article 2, paragraphe 1 \u2013 Champ d\u2019application \u2013 Organismes nationaux comp\u00e9tents \u2013 Article 4, paragraphes 1 et 6 \u2013 Examen de proportionnalit\u00e9 ex ante et ex post ainsi que suivi des mesures nationales restrictives \u2013 Transposition incompl\u00e8te.#Affaire C-518\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a case of “failure to fulfill obligations” brought by the European Commission against the Hellenic Republic (Greece). The Commission argued that Greece had not fully transposed Directive (EU) 2018\/958, which concerns the assessment of the proportionality of national regulations limiting access to or the exercise of regulated professions.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>1. **Subject Matter and Background:** The Commission is claiming that Greece failed to properly implement Directive 2018\/958.<br \/>\n2. **Legal Framework:** This section outlines the relevant articles of EU law, specifically Directive 2018\/958, focusing on the need for Member States to assess the proportionality of regulations concerning regulated professions. It also presents the relevant articles of the Greek Constitution, the internal regulation of the Greek Parliament, and Greek Law 4763\/2020 which was intended to transpose the EU Directive into Greek law.<br \/>\n3. **Pre-litigation Procedure:** This part details the steps taken by the Commission before bringing the case to the CJEU, including letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions sent to Greece, and Greece’s responses.<br \/>\n4. **The Request for the Production of Evidence After the Closure of the Written Phase of the Procedure:** The Court rejected additional documents submitted by Greece after the deadline, arguing they did not justify the delay and did not reflect the legal situation at the time of the reasoned opinion.<br \/>\n5. **The Action:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court examines each of the Commission’s grievances.<br \/>\n * **First Grievance:** The Commission argued that Greece failed to ensure that its transposition measures covered all types of bodies competent to regulate professions, including professional associations and parliamentary initiatives. The Court agreed with the Commission, finding that Greek law did not adequately ensure proportionality assessments for rules stemming from parliamentary initiatives, amendments, or professional organizations.<br \/>\n * **Second Grievance:** The Commission claimed that Greece did not guarantee a systematic review over time of the proportionality of regulations limiting access to regulated professions. The Court again sided with the Commission, noting that the Greek law provided only for a one-time evaluation within three to five years, failing to ensure ongoing review as required by the Directive.<br \/>\n6. **Decision on Costs:** Since Greece failed to meet its obligations, it was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 2(1) of Directive 2018\/958:** This defines the scope of the Directive, applying to any national laws, regulations, or administrative provisions that restrict access to or the practice of regulated professions.<br \/>\n* **Article 4(1) of Directive 2018\/958:** This requires Member States to conduct a proportionality assessment before introducing new or amending existing restrictions on regulated professions.<br \/>\n* **Article 4(6) of Directive 2018\/958:** This mandates that Member States continuously monitor the proportionality of regulations affecting regulated professions, taking into account changes in circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>The key takeaway is that the CJEU found Greece to be in violation of EU law for failing to adequately transpose Directive 2018\/958. This means that Greece’s existing laws did not sufficiently ensure that restrictions on regulated professions were properly assessed for proportionality, both when initially introduced and on an ongoing basis, and that all relevant regulatory bodies were subject to these requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:22025A02326\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Amending Protocol modifies the existing Agreement between the European Union and Switzerland on the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance. The main goals are to update the agreement to align with the newest OECD standards, broaden the scope of reportable financial products (including digital assets), prevent redundant reporting with the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), and reinforce collaboration on VAT collection and recovery. Additionally, the protocol introduces measures for mutual assistance in the recovery of VAT claims between EU member states and Switzerland.<\/p>\n<p>The Amending Protocol includes the following key changes:<\/p>\n<p>* **Title Change and Updated Preamble:** The agreement’s title is updated to include “mutual assistance for the recovery of claims,” and a new preamble details the evolution of the agreement, referencing previous agreements and the OECD’s updated Global Standard.<br \/>\n* **Definitions:** New definitions are added, including “Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework,” “VAT,” “State,” “central liaison office,” “applicant authority,” “requested authority,” “person,” “Joint Committee,” and “by electronic means.”<br \/>\n* **Reporting Requirements:** Article 2 is amended to include more detailed reporting requirements, such as the role of a Reportable Person in an Entity and whether a valid self-certification has been provided. It also addresses the reporting of gross proceeds from the sale of Financial Assets under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework.<br \/>\n* **Timing of Information Exchange:** Article 3 is amended to specify the timing of information exchange for accounts treated as Reportable Accounts due to the new amendments and for additional information required under the protocol.<br \/>\n* **Recovery Assistance (Title 2):** A new Title 2 is added, establishing a framework for recovery assistance between Member States and Switzerland for VAT-related claims. This includes provisions for requests for information, notification of documents, requests for recovery, conditions governing requests, enforcement, disputes, amendments or withdrawals of requests, and limitations to the requested authority’s obligations.<br \/>\n* **Annex I Amendments:** Annex I, which details due diligence requirements, is amended to include provisions for reporting the jurisdiction of residence, TINs, and roles of Reportable Persons, as well as temporary measures for lack of self-certification. It also includes definitions for “Specified Electronic Money Product,” “Central Bank Digital Currency,” “Fiat Currency,” “Crypto-Asset,” and “Relevant Crypto-Asset.”<br \/>\n* **Swiss Qualified Non-Profit Entity:** A new category of “Non-Reporting Financial Institution” is added for Swiss Qualified Non-Profit Entities, subject to verification procedures.<br \/>\n* **Joint Committee:** A Joint Committee is established to ensure the proper functioning and implementation of Title 2, with the power to adopt decisions on various aspects of the recovery assistance framework.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for practical use are those related to the expanded reporting requirements in Article 2 and Annex I, as these will directly impact financial institutions. The new Title 2 on recovery assistance is also significant, as it establishes a detailed framework for cooperation in VAT claim recovery. The transitional measures in Article 2 and Section X of Annex I provide clarity on when the new provisions will apply, which is crucial for compliance.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0022\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-22\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Norway has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Norway in violation of the EEA Agreement and to order Norway to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document is structured as follows: It begins by identifying the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Norway) and the date the action was brought. It then presents the ESA’s requests to the EFTA Court, followed by a summary of the legal and factual background. This background includes the ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Norway, Norway’s response, the ESA’s reasoned opinion, Norway’s subsequent reply, and the ESA’s decision to bring the matter before the Court. The core of the dispute centers on Norway’s delay in fully incorporating the Cybersecurity Act into its legal system, specifically the provisions related to the cybersecurity certification framework.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of the act for its use is the request to the EFTA Court to declare that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 5cp of Annex XI and point 48 of Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) 2019\/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526\/2013 (Cybersecurity Act)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order. This highlights the core issue: Norway’s incomplete implementation of the EU Cybersecurity Act within the EEA framework.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0021\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-21\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of the EEA Agreement and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document is structured as follows: It begins by identifying the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland) and the date of the action. It then presents the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court, which includes a declaration of Iceland’s failure to comply with the EEA Agreement and an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The document further details the legal and factual background of the case, including the ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Iceland, the subsequent reasoned opinion, and Iceland’s failure to respond to either. The ESA emphasizes that Iceland has neither incorporated the Cybersecurity Act into its internal legal order nor informed the ESA of any steps taken to do so.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request for the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the core issue of Iceland’s failure to transpose Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law. The document also underscores the procedural steps taken by the ESA, including the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion, which are prerequisites for bringing an action before the EFTA Court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0009\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court, dated 27\u00a0May 2025 in the case of Peter Ploerer v LGT Bank AG (Case E-9\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court in the case of Peter Ploerer v LGT Bank AG. The request concerns the interpretation of several EU directives related to insurance and financial services, specifically regarding limitation periods for claims of remuneration interest. The core issue revolves around whether a 3-year limitation period for claiming remuneration interest, in cases of unjust enrichment or invalid contract terms, undermines the effectiveness of consumer rights under EU law.<\/p>\n<p>The document consists of a preamble identifying the requesting court, the date of the request, and the parties involved, followed by two specific questions posed to the EFTA Court.<\/p>\n<p>The first question asks whether the principle that a 3-year limitation period for remuneration interest claims is permissible (derived from interpretations of Directives 90\/619\/EEC, 2002\/83\/EC, and 2009\/138\/EC regarding insurance contracts) also applies when a non-professional client of an investment service provider is entitled to remuneration interest due to an invalid contract term under MiFID I. The question highlights the potential undermining of the right to recover benefits if interest is not received for the entire period the funds were withheld (up to 30 years).<\/p>\n<p>The second question, contingent on a negative answer to the first, asks whether Article 19 of MiFID I and Article 26 of Implementing Directive 2006\/73\/EC, in conjunction with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93\/13, preclude national provisions that set the starting point for the limitation period as the date when it becomes objectively possible to bring an action, regardless of subjective impediments like lack of awareness. This question addresses whether such a provision effectively limits the right to remuneration interest to the last three years before the action, potentially violating the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this document is the focus on the interplay between EU directives and national laws regarding limitation periods for financial claims. The EFTA Court’s advisory opinion will clarify the extent to which national laws can impose time limits on claims for remuneration interest without undermining the consumer protection goals of EU legislation in the fields of insurance and financial services.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0020\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-20\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Norway has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. Specifically, Norway has not incorporated Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018\/151, which concerns the security of network and information systems of digital service providers, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Norway in violation of its obligations and to order Norway to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document presents the legal and factual background of the case. It begins by stating the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court, followed by a chronological account of the events leading to the action. This includes the initial letter of formal notice sent by the ESA to Norway, Norway’s response indicating ongoing legislative measures, the delivery of a reasoned opinion by the ESA, and Norway’s subsequent reply. The document emphasizes that, as of the date of the application, Norway had not yet incorporated the relevant EU regulation into its internal legal order.<\/p>\n<p>The core of the document lies in its assertion that Norway has failed to meet its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018\/151. This regulation specifies the elements digital service providers must consider for managing risks to the security of network and information systems, as well as parameters for determining the impact of security incidents. The ESA’s action is based on Norway’s failure to incorporate this regulation into its national law despite multiple notifications and deadlines.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0019\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-19\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document is an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway before the EFTA Court. The ESA claims that Norway has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2016\/1148 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems (the NIS Directive). The ESA argues that Norway has neither adopted the necessary measures to implement the Directive within the prescribed time nor informed the ESA about it. Consequently, the ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Norway in breach of its obligations and order it to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document outlines the legal and factual background of the case. It details the exchange between the ESA and Norway, starting with a letter of formal notice sent by the ESA to Norway, followed by Norway’s response indicating delays in implementation, the delivery of a reasoned opinion by the ESA, and Norway’s subsequent reply. The ESA emphasizes that, as of the date of the application, it has not received any notification or information suggesting that Norway has incorporated the NIS Directive into its national legal order.<\/p>\n<p>The core provision at stake is Norway’s obligation to implement Directive (EU) 2016\/1148, which aims to achieve a high common level of security of network and information systems across the European Union and the EEA. The ESA’s action is based on Norway’s alleged failure to adopt the necessary measures to transpose this Directive into its national law within the stipulated timeframe and to inform the ESA accordingly. The most important aspect of this document is the potential legal consequences for Norway if the EFTA Court rules in favor of the ESA, as it would formally declare Norway in breach of its EEA obligations.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0023\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-23\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Specifically, Iceland has not incorporated Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019\/290, which concerns the format for registration and reporting of producers of electrical and electronic equipment, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of the EEA Agreement and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document is structured as follows: It begins with the identification of the case and the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland). It then presents the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court, which includes a declaration of Iceland’s failure to comply with the EEA Agreement and an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The document then outlines the legal and factual background of the case, including the ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Iceland, Iceland’s lack of response, the subsequent reasoned opinion issued by the ESA, Iceland’s acknowledgment of non-compliance, and the ESA’s decision to bring the matter before the EFTA Court.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court to declare that Iceland has failed to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019\/290 into its national law, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This regulation is crucial for ensuring the proper registration and reporting of producers of electrical and electronic equipment within the EEA, and its absence in Iceland’s legal order represents a breach of its obligations under the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Acts Review Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 – “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” PGI This regulation officially recognizes “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. Article 1 formalizes this recognition by adding the name to the Union register. Article 2 provides a five-year transitional period for companies affiliated with…<\/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-13420","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\/13420","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=13420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":13420,"date":"2025-11-21T09:25:06","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T07:25:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-21-11-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-21T09:25:06","modified_gmt":"2025-11-21T07:25:06","slug":"review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-21-11-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-21-11-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the EU legislation for 21\/11\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\nLegal Acts Review<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 – “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” PGI<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation officially recognizes “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. Article 1 formalizes this recognition by adding the name to the Union register. Article 2 provides a five-year transitional period for companies affiliated with FENAVIAN that have legally used the name for at least five years, allowing them to continue using it. Article 3 sets the regulation’s entry into force twenty days after publication.<\/p>\n<h5>Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2368 – Sudan Sanctions<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 by adding Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, Deputy Commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), to the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures due to activities undermining Sudan’s stability. Article 1 makes the amendment, Article 2 sets the entry into force, and the Annex details the reasons for Dagalo’s listing, including his role in the RSF’s campaign in Darfur and actions against civilians. Dagalo now faces an asset freeze and travel ban within the EU.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2339 – PGI \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 Amendment<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the protected geographical indication (PGI) \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 (Dunavska ravnina). Article 1 formally approves the Union amendment to the product specification of the PGI, and Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal. The regulation protects the amended product specification.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2345 – Dazomet Renewal<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation renews the approval of dazomet as an active substance in biocidal products of product-type 8 (wood preservatives). Article 1 renews the approval subject to conditions in the annex, while Article 2 sets the entry into force date. The annex outlines conditions for the renewed approval, including a minimum purity level and an expiry date of August 31, 2040, as well as conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing dazomet and labeling requirements for treated articles.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2333 – Hardwood Plywood Anti-Dumping Duty<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood from China and definitively collects provisional duties. It imposes duties of 43.3% for Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd and 86.8% for all other companies originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. It requires a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration to apply the individual duty rate.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2202 – Biocidal Product Family \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019 Amendment<\/h5>\n<p>This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1434 to update administrative details and correct minor errors for the biocidal product family \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019. Article 1 replaces the authorization holder’s name with \u2018MC (Netherlands) 1 B.V.\u2019, and Article 2 replaces the annex with updated text, including administrative changes and minor adjustments. The annex contains the updated summary of product characteristics.<\/p>\n<h5>European Commission v. Ireland – Failure to Transpose Water Directive<\/h5>\n<p>The Court found that Ireland failed to fulfill its obligations regarding the definition of “water services”, environmental objectives, review of analyses, protection of drinking water, cost recovery, certain basic measures for groundwater protection, controls over abstraction of water, hydromorphological conditions of surface water, prevention of pollution incidents for groundwater, identification of pressures and assessment of impact on surface water, and monitoring of water status. The Court dismissed one part of the complaint related to hydromorphological conditions. Ireland was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<h5>Asylum and Temporary Protection Directives<\/h5>\n<p>This judgment clarifies that Directives 2011\/95 and 2013\/32, which govern international protection, apply to individuals who have been granted temporary protection under Directive 2001\/55. The Court clarifies that the right to apply for asylum (Article 17 of Directive 2001\/55) includes the right to apply for both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Member States cannot reject an application for subsidiary protection solely because the applicant already has temporary protection.<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Qualifications Judgement<\/h5>\n<p>The judgment clarifies that while Member States generally must consider qualifications obtained in other Member States, this obligation does not extend to qualifications that are not officially recognized or do not grant access to the profession in the issuing Member State.<\/p>\n<h5>Electronic Communications Code Interpretation<\/h5>\n<p>National regulatory authorities, when considering imposing access obligations to civil engineering assets under Article 72 of Directive 2018\/1972, must ensure that such obligations Do not hinder the emergence of a sustainable competitive market and are in the end-user’s interest. Are based on the nature of the problem identified in the market analysis. Are necessary and proportionate with regard to all the objectives set out in Article 3 of the Directive (promoting connectivity, competition, internal market development, and the interests of EU citizens), without any order of priority.<\/p>\n<h5>Stockholms Hamn AB case<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU clarifies that the definition of “undertaking” includes any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status or financing. This is crucial for determining whether Stockholms Hamn AB’s operation of the lock constitutes an economic activity subject to State aid rules.<\/p>\n<h5>Delegated Regulation Validity<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU concluded that the examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446.<\/p>\n<h5>Turniquets tariff classification<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU determined that the subheading 9018 90 84 of the CN does not cover tourniquets in the form of elastic straps fitted with a clip closure and a sliding buckle. It means that these items should be classified as textile articles.<\/p>\n<h5>Directive 2016\/680 interpretation<\/h5>\n<p>The Court clarified that EU law does not prevent national laws that allow the collection of biometric and genetic data from individuals suspected of intentional crimes, provided that the data collection adheres to the principles of necessity and proportionality.<\/p>\n<h5>Excise Duties Ruling<\/h5>\n<p>A company engaged in producing ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement, even if not yet officially authorized as a tax warehousekeeper, can be considered a “person liable” for excise duty on missing alcohol.<\/p>\n<h5>Failure to Fulfill Obligations Judgement<\/h5>\n<p>The CJEU found Greece to be in violation of EU law for failing to adequately transpose Directive 2018\/958. This means that Greece’s existing laws did not sufficiently ensure that restrictions on regulated professions were properly assessed for proportionality, both when initially introduced and on an ongoing basis, and that all relevant regulatory bodies were subject to these requirements.<\/p>\n<h5>Amending Protocol Modifies Agreement between the EU and Switzerland<\/h5>\n<p>The main goals are to update the agreement to align with the newest OECD standards, broaden the scope of reportable financial products (including digital assets), prevent redundant reporting with the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), and reinforce collaboration on VAT collection and recovery. Additionally, the protocol introduces measures for mutual assistance in the recovery of VAT claims between EU member states and Switzerland.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway: Cybersecurity Act<\/h5>\n<p>The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 5cp of Annex XI and point 48 of Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) 2019\/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526\/2013 (Cybersecurity Act)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland<\/h5>\n<p>The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the core issue of Iceland’s failure to transpose Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law.<\/p>\n<h5>Advisory Opinion Requested from the EFTA Court<\/h5>\n<p>The EFTA Court’s advisory opinion will clarify the extent to which national laws can impose time limits on claims for remuneration interest without undermining the consumer protection goals of EU legislation in the fields of insurance and financial services.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway<\/h5>\n<p>The core of the document lies in its assertion that Norway has failed to meet its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018\/151.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway, Action<\/h5>\n<p>The document is the description of core provision at stake is Norway’s obligation to implement Directive (EU) 2016\/1148, which aims to achieve a high common level of security of network and information systems across the European Union and the EEA.<\/p>\n<h5>EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland, Action<\/h5>\n<p> The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court to declare that Iceland has failed to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019\/290 into its national law, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This regulation is crucial for ensuring the proper registration and reporting of producers of electrical and electronic equipment within the EEA, and its absence in Iceland’s legal order represents a breach of its obligations under the EEA Agreement.<\/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_202501802\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025\/1802 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive\u00a02011\/65\/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead in high melting temperature solders<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502363\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025\/2363 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive\u00a02011\/65\/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead in glass or ceramic components<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502364\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2025\/2364 of 8\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive\u00a02011\/65\/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards an exemption for lead as an alloying element in steel, aluminium and copper<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502359\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2359 of 8\u00a0July 2025 supplementing Directive (EU)\u00a02024\/1788 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying a methodology for assessing greenhouse gas emissions savings from low-carbon fuels<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R1353\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/1353 of 1\u00a0July 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/2534 on household tumble dryers regarding information on repairability and clarifying some aspects of the measurement and calculation methods, the product information sheet, the technical documentation and the verification procedure<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502335\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2335 of 20\u00a0November 2025 setting the reference CO2 emissions for the reporting period of the year 2019<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=OJ:L_202502338\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2338 of 20\u00a0November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02016\/100 laying down implementing technical standards specifying the joint decision process with regard to the application for certain prudential permissions pursuant to Regulation (EU) No\u00a0575\/2013 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_202502358\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2358 of 20\u00a0November 2025 laying down rules on certification schemes, certification bodies, and audits under Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/3012 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_202502289\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2289 of 13\u00a0November 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the format for the reporting of data as well as the assessment methods and operational conditions for the collection and treatment of waste batteries<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2341\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 of 13\u00a0November 2025 entering the geographical indication Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2341\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 of 13\u00a0November 2025 entering the geographical indication Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge (PGI) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 officially recognizes “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the European Union. This means that the name “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” can only be used for products originating from a specific geographical area and produced according to defined standards.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of three articles. Article 1 formally enters the geographical indication \u2018Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge\u2019 into the Union register of geographical indications. Article 2 grants a five-year transitional period for companies affiliated to FENAVIAN that have been legally using the name \u2018Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge\u2019 for at least five years prior to the publication date of the application, allowing them to continue using the name for a limited time. Article 3 specifies that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This regulation is based on Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143, which sets the framework for geographical indications.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is Article 2, which provides a transitional period for certain companies to continue using the name “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” even if they are located outside the designated geographical area. This is a temporary exception to protect businesses that have a history of using the name, while still ensuring that the PGI status is ultimately respected.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2368\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2368 of 20 November 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 concerning restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2368 amends Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 by adding one individual to the list of those subject to restrictive measures in view of activities undermining the stability and political transition of Sudan. This regulation directly implements the existing framework for sanctions related to the situation in Sudan. The addition is based on the gravity of the situation and the individual’s role in actions threatening the peace, stability, or security of Sudan.<\/p>\n<p>The structure of the regulation is simple: it has two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2023\/2147 is amended as per the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies the regulation’s entry into force, which is the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and confirms its binding and directly applicable nature in all Member States. The Annex adds a new entry to the list of natural persons subject to sanctions.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the inclusion of Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, Deputy Commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), to the list of sanctioned individuals. The reasons for his listing include his pivotal role in the RSF campaign in Darfur, his supervision of military operations, his orders for the killing and execution of civilians, and his leadership in RSF actions against civilians in El Fasher. Furthermore, his association with Al Junaid Multi Activities Co Ltd, which is accused of procuring military equipment for the RSF, is also cited as a reason for the sanctions. This addition means that Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo is now subject to an asset freeze and travel ban within the European Union.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2339\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2339 of 13\u00a0November 2025 on the approval of a Union amendment to the product specification of the protected geographical indication \u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430 pursuant to of Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2339 approves a Union amendment to the product specification for the protected geographical indication (PGI) \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 (Dunavska ravnina), which refers to a specific geographical region. The approval follows the procedure laid down in Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143 on geographical indications. Since no objections were received, the amendment is now officially recognized at the Union level.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of a preamble outlining the legal basis and the reasons for the decision, followed by two articles. Article 1 formally approves the Union amendment to the product specification of the PGI \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 as published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal. The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. This regulation does not introduce new provisions but rather approves an amendment to existing specifications.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is Article 1, which legally recognizes and protects the amended product specification for \u2018\u0414\u0443\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430\u2019 within the EU. This means that the updated standards and characteristics of products from this region, as defined in the amended specification, are now officially endorsed and protected against misuse or imitation within the European Union.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2340\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2340 of 13\u00a0November 2025 on the registration of the geographical indication Yenice Ihlamur Bal\u0131 (PDO) in the Union register of geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2345\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2345 of 19\u00a0November 2025 renewing the approval of dazomet as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 in accordance with Regulation (EU) No\u00a0528\/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2345 renews the approval of dazomet as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 8 (wood preservatives) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 528\/2012. The regulation concludes that dazomet-containing products can still meet the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528\/2012, subject to certain conditions. It sets specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing dazomet and for the placing on the market of treated articles.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that the approval of dazomet is renewed subject to the conditions in the annex. Article 2 specifies that the regulation comes into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex specifies the conditions for the renewed approval of dazomet. It includes the common and IUPAC names, identification numbers, minimum degree of purity (96%), expiry date of approval (August 31, 2040), and product type (8) for dazomet. It also outlines specific conditions for the authorization of biocidal products containing dazomet, focusing on exposure, risks, efficacy, and labeling requirements for treated articles. Furthermore, it sets a deadline of March 1, 2026, for compliance with labeling requirements for treated articles containing dazomet.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for users are the conditions outlined in the Annex. These include the need for product assessments to address exposures, risks, and efficacy, specific instructions for use and precautions on treated article labels, and the deadline of March 1, 2026, for ensuring that treated articles placed on the market are appropriately labeled according to Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528\/2012.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2333\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2333 of 19\u00a0November 2025 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2333, which imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hardwood plywood originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The regulation also definitively collects the provisional duty that was previously imposed. This action follows an anti-dumping investigation initiated in October 2024 after a complaint by the Greenwood Consortium, representing the Union industry of hardwood plywood.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation is structured into several sections, covering the procedure, product concerned, dumping, injury, causation, level of measures, Union interest, definitive anti-dumping measures, and final provisions. It details the steps taken during the investigation, including the imposition of provisional measures, consultations with interested parties, and verification visits to companies. The regulation addresses claims made by various parties, including exporting producers, importers, and users, and explains the Commission’s decisions regarding product scope, sampling, dumping margin calculations, injury assessment, and Union interest. It also sets the definitive anti-dumping duty rates for specific companies and all other imports from China.<\/p>\n<p>Key provisions of the regulation include the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties of 43.3% for Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd and 86.8% for all other companies originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China. The regulation specifies the conditions for applying the individual duty rate, including the requirement for a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration. It also addresses the monitoring of imports of plywood with outer plies made of coniferous wood or bamboo and with a core containing plies of hardwood. The regulation also provides for the definitive collection of provisional duties and addresses the issue of retroactivity.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2202\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2202 of 22\u00a0October 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02022\/1434 as regards administrative changes to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15, and correcting that Regulation<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2202, which amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022\/1434. The core function of this regulation is to update the administrative details and correct minor errors related to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family known as \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019. The changes include updating the authorisation holder’s name due to a company acquisition and incorporating administrative changes such as the addition of manufacturers and address updates.<\/p>\n<p>The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces the previous authorisation holder’s name with \u2018MC (Netherlands) 1 B.V.\u2019, while reaffirming the authorisation number and its validity period. Article 2 replaces the entire annex of the previous regulation with a fully updated text, which includes administrative changes and minor editorial and layout adjustments. Article 3 specifies that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex contains the summary of product characteristics for the biocidal product family \u2018CMIT-MIT Aqueous 1.5-15\u2019, detailing administrative information, product family composition, hazard and precautionary statements, authorized uses, and general directions for use.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for users of this regulation are the updated details of the authorisation holder and the revised summary of product characteristics (SPC) in the Annex. The SPC provides crucial information on the product’s composition, approved uses, application rates, user categories, and necessary risk mitigation measures. Users should consult the updated SPC to ensure they are compliant with the latest conditions of use, particularly regarding safety measures and application instructions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2262\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Commission Regulation (EU) 2025\/2262 of 11\u00a0November 2025 amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/826 to clarify definitions and some aspects of the measurement conditions and amending Regulation (EU)\u00a02023\/2533 in relation to the methodology for calculating the average final moisture content, the identification and availability of spare parts and of repair information among other aspects<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0204\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.European Commission v Ireland.Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations \u2013 Environment \u2013 Directive 2000\/60\/EC \u2013 Community action in the field of water policy \u2013 Failure to transpose fully and correctly.Case C-204\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This judgment addresses an action brought by the European Commission against Ireland for failing to correctly and fully transpose several articles and annexes of Directive 2000\/60\/EC, which establishes a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. The Commission identified 14 specific areas where it believed Ireland had not met its obligations under the Directive.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around these 14 complaints, each addressing a specific provision or annex of Directive 2000\/60\/EC. For each complaint, the Court presents the arguments of both the Commission and Ireland, followed by the Court’s findings. The complaints cover a range of issues, including the definition of “water services,” environmental objectives for groundwater and protected areas, review of analyses of water characteristics, protection of water used for drinking, cost recovery for water services, and specific measures related to water protection and pollution control.<\/p>\n<p>The Court found that Ireland failed to fulfill its obligations regarding the following: the definition of “water services” (Article 2(38)), environmental objectives (Article 4(2)), review of analyses (Article 5(2)), protection of drinking water (Article 7(3)), cost recovery (Article 9(2)), certain basic measures for groundwater protection (Article 11(3)(a) to (d)), controls over abstraction of water (Article 11(3)(e)), hydromorphological conditions of surface water (Article 11(3)(i)), prevention of pollution incidents for groundwater (Article 11(3)(l)), identification of pressures and assessment of impact on surface water (Annex II, points 1.4 and 1.5), and monitoring of water status (Annex V, points 1.3.1 to 1.3.5 and point 2.4.5). The Court dismissed one part of the complaint related to hydromorphological conditions. Ireland was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62025CJ0195\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2025.AA and\u00a0Others v Migrationsverket.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Asylum policy \u2013 Area of freedom, security and justice \u2013 Refugee status or subsidiary protection status \u2013 Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection \u2013 Directive 2001\/55\/EC \u2013 Temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons \u2013 Articles 17 and 19 \u2013 Concept of \u2018application for asylum\u2019 \u2013 Article 3(1) \u2013 Grant of subsidiary protection status to a person enjoying temporary protection \u2013 Directive 2011\/95\/EU \u2013 Article 18 \u2013 Directive 2013\/32\/EU \u2013 Article 33(2) \u2013 Direct effect.Case C-195\/25.<\/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 several directives related to asylum and temporary protection. The case revolves around the rights of individuals enjoying temporary protection in a Member State to also apply for and be considered for refugee status or subsidiary protection status. The CJEU clarifies the relationship between the temporary protection regime and the broader system of international protection.<\/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 legal context.<br \/>\n2. It identifies the EU directives in question: Directive 2001\/55\/EC on temporary protection, Directive 2011\/95\/EU on international protection, and Directive 2013\/32\/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection.<br \/>\n3. It summarizes the facts of the case, the questions referred by the national court (F\u00f6rvaltningsr\u00e4tten i G\u00f6teborg, migrationsdomstolen, Sweden), and the arguments presented by the parties involved.<br \/>\n4. It provides the Court’s reasoning and answers to the questions, interpreting the relevant articles of the directives.<br \/>\n5. Finally, it states the Court’s decision.<\/p>\n<p>The key provisions and changes clarified by this judgment are:<br \/>\n* **Applicability of Directives 2011\/95 and 2013\/32:** The CJEU confirms that Directives 2011\/95 and 2013\/32, which govern international protection, apply to individuals who have been granted temporary protection under Directive 2001\/55.<br \/>\n* **Right to Apply for International Protection:** The Court clarifies that the right to apply for asylum (Article 17 of Directive 2001\/55) includes the right to apply for both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Member States cannot reject an application for subsidiary protection solely because the applicant already has temporary protection.<br \/>\n* **Direct Effect:** The CJEU states that Article 18 of Directive 2011\/95 and Article 33 of Directive 2013\/32 have direct effect. This means that individuals can rely on these articles in national courts if the national legislation is not in conformity with them. If national law cannot be interpreted in a way that is consistent with these EU law provisions, national courts must disapply the conflicting national law.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is that Member States cannot reject an application for subsidiary protection solely because the applicant already has temporary protection. The Court emphasizes that Member States must examine whether the applicant qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status, regardless of their temporary protection status. This ensures that individuals are not denied the full protection they may be entitled to under EU law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0340\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.EW and LO v Ministero dell\u2019Istruzione e del Merito and Ministero dell’Universit\u00e0 e della Ricerca.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Free movement of persons \u2013 Articles 45 and 49 TFEU \u2013 Recognition of professional qualifications \u2013 Right to pursue the profession of a support teacher in a Member State \u2013 Nationals of that Member State who have obtained evidence of formal qualifications issued by a private higher education institute in another Member State \u2013 Formal qualification which is not legally recognised and does not give access to the corresponding profession in the latter Member State \u2013 Obligation on the first Member State to take into consideration all of the diplomas, certificates and other evidence which the person concerned holds \u2013 Derogation.Joined Cases C-340\/24 and C-442\/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 recognition of professional qualifications, specifically for the profession of a support teacher. The case revolves around Italian nationals who obtained a qualification from a private higher education institute in Spain and were denied recognition of that qualification in Italy. The CJEU clarifies the extent to which a host Member State (Italy) is obligated to recognize qualifications obtained in another Member State (Spain), especially when those qualifications are not officially recognized in the issuing Member State.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>* The judgment addresses two requests for a preliminary ruling from an Italian court regarding the interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2005\/36\/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications.<br \/>\n* It examines whether Italy is obliged to recognize a “specialisation in learning support for special needs” qualification obtained in Spain from Universidad Cardenal Herrera \u2013 CEU, a private university.<br \/>\n* The Italian authority rejected the recognition because the Spanish authorities indicated that the qualification was not an official one in Spain and did not allow the holder to pursue the regulated profession of a specialized primary school teacher in Spain.<br \/>\n* The CJEU reformulates the question to address the core issue: whether Articles 45 and 49 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) impose an obligation on the host Member State to consider qualifications that are not legally recognized in the issuing state.<br \/>\n* The Court refers to established case law that typically requires host Member States to consider all relevant diplomas and experience. However, it distinguishes the present case because the qualification in question is not officially recognized in Spain and does not grant access to the profession there.<br \/>\n* The CJEU concludes that EU law does not oblige the host Member State to recognize qualifications that are not recognized in the home Member State. However, the host Member State remains free to consider such qualifications during the comparative examination of the applicant’s credentials.<\/p>\n<p>**Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n<p>* **Recognition of Qualifications:** The judgment clarifies that while Member States generally must consider qualifications obtained in other Member States, this obligation does not extend to qualifications that are not officially recognized or do not grant access to the profession in the issuing Member State.<br \/>\n* **Mutual Trust:** The principle of mutual trust among Member States regarding professional qualifications does not apply when the qualification is issued by a private institution without proper authorization or does not attest to a recognized professional qualification in the home Member State.<br \/>\n* **Host Member State Discretion:** The host Member State retains the discretion to consider non-recognized qualifications, but it is not obligated to do so.<br \/>\n* **Applicable Articles:** The judgment specifies that Articles 45 and 49 TFEU, concerning the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment, are relevant in cases where Directive 2005\/36\/EC does not apply.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0327\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Telekom Deutschland GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 European Electronic Communications Code \u2013 Directive (EU) 2018\/1972 \u2013 Access remedies imposed on undertakings with significant market power \u2013 Article 72 \u2013 Obligations of access to civil engineering assets \u2013 Conditions.Case C-327\/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 the European Electronic Communications Code, specifically Directive (EU) 2018\/1972. The case revolves around a dispute in Germany regarding access obligations to civil engineering assets imposed on Telekom Deutschland GmbH, a telecommunications company with significant market power. The core issue is whether the German regulatory authority, when considering imposing obligations for access to civil engineering assets, should only consider the impact on market competition and end-user interests, or if it can also consider broader objectives outlined in the Directive, such as promoting connectivity and developing the internal market.<\/p>\n<p>**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n<p>The judgment interprets Articles 72 and 73 of Directive 2018\/1972.<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 72:** Deals with access to civil engineering assets (buildings, cables, poles, etc.). It allows national regulatory authorities to impose obligations on undertakings to provide access to these assets if denying access would hinder market competition and harm end-user interests.<br \/>\n* **Article 73:** Concerns access to specific network elements and associated facilities.<\/p>\n<p>The CJEU clarifies the relationship between these articles, emphasizing that Article 72 can be used as a “self-standing remedy” to impose access specifically to civil engineering assets, while Article 73 is more of an “ancillary remedy” related to network access or electronic communication services.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment also refers to Article 3 of the Directive, which outlines general objectives such as promoting connectivity, competition, internal market development, and the interests of EU citizens.<\/p>\n<p>**Key Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\n<p>The main point of clarification is whether national regulatory authorities, when deciding on access obligations for civil engineering assets, can consider the broader objectives of Article 3 of the Directive. The CJEU concludes that they must consider all the objectives of Article 3, not just competition and end-user interests.<\/p>\n<p>**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n<p>The most important takeaway from this judgment is that national regulatory authorities, when considering imposing access obligations to civil engineering assets under Article 72 of Directive 2018\/1972, must ensure that such obligations:<\/p>\n<p>1. Do not hinder the emergence of a sustainable competitive market and are in the end-user’s interest.<br \/>\n2. Are based on the nature of the problem identified in the market analysis.<br \/>\n3. Are necessary and proportionate with regard to all the objectives set out in Article 3 of the Directive (promoting connectivity, competition, internal market development, and the interests of EU citizens), without any order of priority.<\/p>\n<p>This means that regulators have a broad mandate to consider various factors when making decisions about access to civil engineering assets in the telecommunications sector.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0401\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Staten genom Sj\u00f6fartsverket v Stockholms Hamn AB.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 State aid \u2013 Agreement concluded before the accession of the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union \u2013 Compensation for the loss of revenue arising from the abolition of passage fees for a lock \u2013 Concept of aid \u2013 Concept of undertaking \u2013 Economic activity \u2013 Existing or new aid.Case C-401\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a preliminary ruling concerning State aid. The case revolves around compensation paid by the Swedish Maritime Administration to Stockholms Hamn AB for abolishing lock passage fees. The core issue is whether this compensation constitutes unlawful State aid under EU law.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>* It begins by outlining the legal context, referencing Article 107 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) concerning State aid, the Act of Accession of Sweden to the EU, and Regulation 2015\/1589 defining “existing aid.”<br \/>\n* It details the factual background of the dispute, including the agreement between the Maritime Administration and Stockholms Hamn AB, the terms of the compensation, and the reasons for the legal action.<br \/>\n* The judgment then addresses the questions posed by the referring Swedish court, focusing on whether the compensation constitutes an advantage, whether it should be considered existing aid, and whether subsequent extensions and adjustments to the agreement alter its status to “new aid.”<br \/>\n* Finally, the CJEU provides answers to the referring court, clarifying the interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the judgment are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Definition of “Undertaking”**: The CJEU clarifies that the definition of “undertaking” includes any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status or financing. This is crucial for determining whether Stockholms Hamn AB’s operation of the lock constitutes an economic activity subject to State aid rules.<br \/>\n* **Application of the Altmark Criteria**: The judgment refers to the Altmark criteria, which outline conditions under which compensation for public service obligations does not constitute State aid. The referring court must assess whether the compensation meets these criteria, particularly regarding the absence of overcompensation.<br \/>\n* **Classification of “Existing Aid”**: The CJEU clarifies that the compensation, if considered aid, qualifies as “existing aid” because it was implemented before Sweden’s accession to the EU. The judgment specifies that Article 144 of the Act of Accession does not apply in this case, as it concerns agricultural products.<br \/>\n* **Alterations to Existing Aid**: The judgment explains that the extensions and adjustments to the compensation agreement do not necessarily transform it into “new aid.” Only substantial alterations that affect the compatibility assessment would lead to such a reclassification. Automatic extensions and adjustments based on predefined criteria in the original agreement are less likely to be considered substantial alterations.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0617\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Siegfried PharmaChemikalien Minden GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Customs union \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013 \u2013 Union Customs Code \u2013 Article 24(d) and Article 211(2) \u2013 Delegation of power to the European Commission \u2013 Power to \u2018supplement\u2019 a legislative act \u2013 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446 \u2013 Article 172(1) and (2) \u2013 Validity \u2013 Retroactive effect of an inward processing authorisation.Case C-617\/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 validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446, which supplements the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013). The case originated from a dispute in Germany concerning a company’s application for a retroactive inward processing authorisation and the Main Customs Office’s rejection of that application. The referring court questioned whether the Commission exceeded its powers by limiting the retroactive effect of such authorisations in time.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment addresses whether the Commission exceeded the limits of its delegated powers under Article 24(d) and Article 212(a) of the Customs Code by stipulating that a retroactive inward processing authorisation can only take effect from the date the application was accepted, or exceptionally, one year prior. The Court clarifies the distinction between the powers to “supplement” and “amend” a legislative act, noting that the Commission’s power in this case was to supplement the Customs Code. It finds that Article 24(d) empowers the Commission to specify when a decision takes effect from a date different from when the applicant receives it. The Court also concludes that limiting the retroactive effect of authorisations does not alter an essential rule of the Customs Code and serves to ensure clarity, legal certainty, and equal treatment.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also examines whether the statement of reasons for the contested provision satisfies the requirements of Article 296 TFEU. It finds that recital 14 of Delegated Regulation 2015\/2446 provides sufficient reasoning, as it indicates the need to thoroughly identify cases where a decision should take effect from a different date for the sake of clarity and legal certainty. Ultimately, the Court concludes that the examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 172(1) and (2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0631\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Servoprax GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Customs union \u2013 Regulation (EEC) No 2658\/87 \u2013 Tariff classification \u2013 Common Customs Tariff \u2013 Combined Nomenclature \u2013 Classification under subheading 9018 90 84 \u2013 Tourniquets \u2013 Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013 \u2013 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446 \u2013 Second sentence of Article 252 \u2013 Validity.Case C-631\/23.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the tariff classification of tourniquets. The central issue is whether these tourniquets, specifically elastic straps with a clip closure used to restrict blood flow, should be classified under subheading 9018 90 84 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN), which covers medical instruments and appliances, or under a different subheading, specifically 6307 90 98, relating to other made-up textile articles. The case originated in Germany, where Servoprax GmbH disputed the customs office’s decision to classify their imported tourniquets as textile articles, which incurred a higher duty rate.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured around two main questions referred by the German court. The first concerns the interpretation of the CN regarding the classification of tourniquets. The court examines the wording of heading 9018, its context within the CN, and relevant explanatory notes. It considers whether the tourniquets meet the criteria for medical instruments, particularly regarding their design, precision, and intended use. The second question, contingent on the first, addresses the validity of Article 252 of Delegated Regulation 2015\/2446, which retroactively made Binding Tariff Information (BTI) binding on the holder, a point disputed by Servoprax.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision is the court’s ruling on the first question: the CJEU determined that the subheading 9018 90 84 of the CN does not cover tourniquets in the form of elastic straps fitted with a clip closure and a sliding buckle, intended to be placed on the arm of a patient to compress his or her veins in order to block the patient\u2019s blood circulation. The Court reasoned that to be classified under heading 9018, goods must be characterized by the finish of their manufacture and a high degree of precision. The Court found that the tourniquets at issue are of a very simple design, being elastic straps fitted with a clip closure and a sliding buckle, intended to be placed on the arm of a patient to compress his or her veins in order to block the patient\u2019s blood circulation and should be classified as textile articles.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0057\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2025.JH v Policejn\u00ed prezidium.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of their personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data \u2013 Directive (EU) 2016\/680 \u2013 Article 4(1)(c) and (e) \u2013 Minimisation of data processing \u2013 Storage limitation of personal data \u2013 Article 10 \u2013 Collection and storage of biometric and genetic data \u2013 Strict necessity \u2013 Article 6(a) \u2013 Obligation to make a distinction between personal data of different categories of persons \u2013 National legislation which provides for the collection of biometric and genetic data of any person suspected or accused of having committed an intentional criminal offence \u2013 Article 5 \u2013 Appropriate time limits for erasure or for a periodic review of the need for the storage of those data \u2013 No maximum time limit for storage \u2013 Assessment of the need for the storage of biometric and genetic data by the police on the basis of internal rules \u2013 Article 8(2) \u2013 Lawfulness of the processing of those data \u2013 Concept of \u2018Member State law\u2019 \u2013 Whether national case-law may be classified as \u2018Member State law\u2019.Case C-57\/23.<\/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 Directive (EU) 2016\/680, which deals with the protection of personal data processed by law enforcement authorities. The case revolves around a Czech citizen, JH, whose biometric and genetic data were collected by the police in connection with a criminal investigation. The Czech court sought clarification from the CJEU on whether the Czech legislation, which allows for the collection and storage of such data, is compatible with the EU directive.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<br \/>\n1. It begins with an introduction outlining the context of the case and the questions referred by the Czech court.<br \/>\n2. It then details the relevant legal context, including the specific articles of Directive 2016\/680 and the relevant provisions of Czech law.<br \/>\n3. It describes the facts of the main proceedings, including the criminal proceedings against JH and the legal challenges he brought against the collection and storage of his data.<br \/>\n4. It presents the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Czech court.<br \/>\n5. It provides the CJEU\u2019s analysis and answers to each of the questions, including interpretations of Articles 4, 6, 8, and 10 of Directive 2016\/680.<br \/>\n6. Finally, it concludes with the CJEU\u2019s ruling, providing specific answers to the questions raised by the Czech court.<\/p>\n<p>The main provisions and changes compared to previous versions are not applicable in this case, because this is the interpretation of the existing act, not the new act.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<br \/>\n* **Collection of Biometric and Genetic Data**: The Court clarified that EU law does not prevent national laws that allow the collection of biometric and genetic data from individuals suspected of intentional crimes, provided that the data collection adheres to the principles of necessity and proportionality.<br \/>\n* **Data Storage and Retention**: The Court ruled that there is no need for national laws to set a maximum storage period for biometric and genetic data. However, these laws must have appropriate time limits for regularly reviewing whether keeping the data is still necessary.<br \/>\n* **Definition of \u201cMember State Law\u201d**: The Court clarified that the term \u201cMember State law\u201d can include both statutes and court decisions, as long as they are clear, accessible, and predictable.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0570\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 November 2025.Transilvania Master Insolv IPURL, en tant d\u2019administrateur judiciaire d\u2019 Ecoserv SRL v Direc\u0163ia General\u0103 Regional\u0103 a Finan\u0163elor Publice Cluj and\u00a0Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Excise duties \u2013 Directive 2008\/118\/EC \u2013 Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) \u2013 Person liable to pay excise duty \u2013 Quantity of ethyl alcohol missing from a company\u2019s business assets \u2013 Managing director of a company guilty of embezzlement and of a failure to make entries in the accounts \u2013 Determination of the person liable to pay excise duty \u2013 More than one person liable \u2013 Effect of a judgment of a criminal court delivered in respect of civil matters, finding the managing director solely liable.Case C-570\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 2008\/118\/EC on excise duties, specifically regarding who is liable to pay excise duty when goods go missing from a tax warehouse. The case originates from Romania and involves a company, Ecoserv SRL, that was authorized to produce ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement. A quantity of alcohol went missing, and the Romanian tax authorities sought to recover excise duties from Ecoserv. The company argued that its managing director was solely responsible, as he had been convicted of embezzlement for selling the missing alcohol for his own benefit.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling clarifies the scope of Article 8(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2008\/118\/EC, stating that a company engaged in producing ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension arrangement, even if not yet officially authorized as a tax warehousekeeper, can be considered a “person liable” for excise duty on missing alcohol. It also clarifies that a national court is not bound by a criminal court’s judgment that holds an individual employee or manager solely liable for damages to the state budget due to misappropriation of goods.<\/p>\n<p>The CJEU interprets Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) of Directive 2008\/118 to mean that a company can be held liable for excise duties on missing goods, even if its employee was convicted of stealing those goods. The company’s liability as an authorized warehousekeeper is objective and based on its participation in an economic activity. The court emphasizes that excise duties become chargeable when goods leave a duty suspension arrangement, making the authorized warehousekeeper liable for payment. The judgment of a criminal court regarding civil liability does not override the tax obligations under EU law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0518\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Arr\u00eat de la Cour (huiti\u00e8me chambre) du 20 novembre 2025.#Commission europ\u00e9enne contre R\u00e9publique hell\u00e9nique.#Manquement d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2013 Article 258 TFUE \u2013 Directive (UE) 2018\/958 \u2013 \u00c9valuation par les \u00c9tats membres du caract\u00e8re proportionn\u00e9 des r\u00e9glementations nationales limitant l\u2019acc\u00e8s aux professions r\u00e9glement\u00e9es ou leur exercice \u2013 Article 2, paragraphe 1 \u2013 Champ d\u2019application \u2013 Organismes nationaux comp\u00e9tents \u2013 Article 4, paragraphes 1 et 6 \u2013 Examen de proportionnalit\u00e9 ex ante et ex post ainsi que suivi des mesures nationales restrictives \u2013 Transposition incompl\u00e8te.#Affaire C-518\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This is a judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding a case of “failure to fulfill obligations” brought by the European Commission against the Hellenic Republic (Greece). The Commission argued that Greece had not fully transposed Directive (EU) 2018\/958, which concerns the assessment of the proportionality of national regulations limiting access to or the exercise of regulated professions.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n<p>1. **Subject Matter and Background:** The Commission is claiming that Greece failed to properly implement Directive 2018\/958.<br \/>\n2. **Legal Framework:** This section outlines the relevant articles of EU law, specifically Directive 2018\/958, focusing on the need for Member States to assess the proportionality of regulations concerning regulated professions. It also presents the relevant articles of the Greek Constitution, the internal regulation of the Greek Parliament, and Greek Law 4763\/2020 which was intended to transpose the EU Directive into Greek law.<br \/>\n3. **Pre-litigation Procedure:** This part details the steps taken by the Commission before bringing the case to the CJEU, including letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions sent to Greece, and Greece’s responses.<br \/>\n4. **The Request for the Production of Evidence After the Closure of the Written Phase of the Procedure:** The Court rejected additional documents submitted by Greece after the deadline, arguing they did not justify the delay and did not reflect the legal situation at the time of the reasoned opinion.<br \/>\n5. **The Action:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court examines each of the Commission’s grievances.<br \/>\n * **First Grievance:** The Commission argued that Greece failed to ensure that its transposition measures covered all types of bodies competent to regulate professions, including professional associations and parliamentary initiatives. The Court agreed with the Commission, finding that Greek law did not adequately ensure proportionality assessments for rules stemming from parliamentary initiatives, amendments, or professional organizations.<br \/>\n * **Second Grievance:** The Commission claimed that Greece did not guarantee a systematic review over time of the proportionality of regulations limiting access to regulated professions. The Court again sided with the Commission, noting that the Greek law provided only for a one-time evaluation within three to five years, failing to ensure ongoing review as required by the Directive.<br \/>\n6. **Decision on Costs:** Since Greece failed to meet its obligations, it was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions of the act are:<\/p>\n<p>* **Article 2(1) of Directive 2018\/958:** This defines the scope of the Directive, applying to any national laws, regulations, or administrative provisions that restrict access to or the practice of regulated professions.<br \/>\n* **Article 4(1) of Directive 2018\/958:** This requires Member States to conduct a proportionality assessment before introducing new or amending existing restrictions on regulated professions.<br \/>\n* **Article 4(6) of Directive 2018\/958:** This mandates that Member States continuously monitor the proportionality of regulations affecting regulated professions, taking into account changes in circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>The key takeaway is that the CJEU found Greece to be in violation of EU law for failing to adequately transpose Directive 2018\/958. This means that Greece’s existing laws did not sufficiently ensure that restrictions on regulated professions were properly assessed for proportionality, both when initially introduced and on an ongoing basis, and that all relevant regulatory bodies were subject to these requirements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:22025A02326\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This Amending Protocol modifies the existing Agreement between the European Union and Switzerland on the automatic exchange of financial account information to improve international tax compliance. The main goals are to update the agreement to align with the newest OECD standards, broaden the scope of reportable financial products (including digital assets), prevent redundant reporting with the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), and reinforce collaboration on VAT collection and recovery. Additionally, the protocol introduces measures for mutual assistance in the recovery of VAT claims between EU member states and Switzerland.<\/p>\n<p>The Amending Protocol includes the following key changes:<\/p>\n<p>* **Title Change and Updated Preamble:** The agreement’s title is updated to include “mutual assistance for the recovery of claims,” and a new preamble details the evolution of the agreement, referencing previous agreements and the OECD’s updated Global Standard.<br \/>\n* **Definitions:** New definitions are added, including “Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework,” “VAT,” “State,” “central liaison office,” “applicant authority,” “requested authority,” “person,” “Joint Committee,” and “by electronic means.”<br \/>\n* **Reporting Requirements:** Article 2 is amended to include more detailed reporting requirements, such as the role of a Reportable Person in an Entity and whether a valid self-certification has been provided. It also addresses the reporting of gross proceeds from the sale of Financial Assets under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework.<br \/>\n* **Timing of Information Exchange:** Article 3 is amended to specify the timing of information exchange for accounts treated as Reportable Accounts due to the new amendments and for additional information required under the protocol.<br \/>\n* **Recovery Assistance (Title 2):** A new Title 2 is added, establishing a framework for recovery assistance between Member States and Switzerland for VAT-related claims. This includes provisions for requests for information, notification of documents, requests for recovery, conditions governing requests, enforcement, disputes, amendments or withdrawals of requests, and limitations to the requested authority’s obligations.<br \/>\n* **Annex I Amendments:** Annex I, which details due diligence requirements, is amended to include provisions for reporting the jurisdiction of residence, TINs, and roles of Reportable Persons, as well as temporary measures for lack of self-certification. It also includes definitions for “Specified Electronic Money Product,” “Central Bank Digital Currency,” “Fiat Currency,” “Crypto-Asset,” and “Relevant Crypto-Asset.”<br \/>\n* **Swiss Qualified Non-Profit Entity:** A new category of “Non-Reporting Financial Institution” is added for Swiss Qualified Non-Profit Entities, subject to verification procedures.<br \/>\n* **Joint Committee:** A Joint Committee is established to ensure the proper functioning and implementation of Title 2, with the power to adopt decisions on various aspects of the recovery assistance framework.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provisions for practical use are those related to the expanded reporting requirements in Article 2 and Annex I, as these will directly impact financial institutions. The new Title 2 on recovery assistance is also significant, as it establishes a detailed framework for cooperation in VAT claim recovery. The transitional measures in Article 2 and Section X of Annex I provide clarity on when the new provisions will apply, which is crucial for compliance.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0022\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-22\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Norway has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Norway in violation of the EEA Agreement and to order Norway to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document is structured as follows: It begins by identifying the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Norway) and the date the action was brought. It then presents the ESA’s requests to the EFTA Court, followed by a summary of the legal and factual background. This background includes the ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Norway, Norway’s response, the ESA’s reasoned opinion, Norway’s subsequent reply, and the ESA’s decision to bring the matter before the Court. The core of the dispute centers on Norway’s delay in fully incorporating the Cybersecurity Act into its legal system, specifically the provisions related to the cybersecurity certification framework.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of the act for its use is the request to the EFTA Court to declare that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 5cp of Annex XI and point 48 of Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) 2019\/881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on ENISA (the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) and on information and communications technology cybersecurity certification and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526\/2013 (Cybersecurity Act)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order. This highlights the core issue: Norway’s incomplete implementation of the EU Cybersecurity Act within the EEA framework.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0021\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-21\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by not incorporating Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of the EEA Agreement and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document is structured as follows: It begins by identifying the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland) and the date of the action. It then presents the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court, which includes a declaration of Iceland’s failure to comply with the EEA Agreement and an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The document further details the legal and factual background of the case, including the ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Iceland, the subsequent reasoned opinion, and Iceland’s failure to respond to either. The ESA emphasizes that Iceland has neither incorporated the Cybersecurity Act into its internal legal order nor informed the ESA of any steps taken to do so.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request for the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This highlights the core issue of Iceland’s failure to transpose Regulation (EU) 2019\/881, the Cybersecurity Act, into its national law. The document also underscores the procedural steps taken by the ESA, including the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion, which are prerequisites for bringing an action before the EFTA Court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0009\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court, dated 27\u00a0May 2025 in the case of Peter Ploerer v LGT Bank AG (Case E-9\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document is a request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Princely Supreme Court in the case of Peter Ploerer v LGT Bank AG. The request concerns the interpretation of several EU directives related to insurance and financial services, specifically regarding limitation periods for claims of remuneration interest. The core issue revolves around whether a 3-year limitation period for claiming remuneration interest, in cases of unjust enrichment or invalid contract terms, undermines the effectiveness of consumer rights under EU law.<\/p>\n<p>The document consists of a preamble identifying the requesting court, the date of the request, and the parties involved, followed by two specific questions posed to the EFTA Court.<\/p>\n<p>The first question asks whether the principle that a 3-year limitation period for remuneration interest claims is permissible (derived from interpretations of Directives 90\/619\/EEC, 2002\/83\/EC, and 2009\/138\/EC regarding insurance contracts) also applies when a non-professional client of an investment service provider is entitled to remuneration interest due to an invalid contract term under MiFID I. The question highlights the potential undermining of the right to recover benefits if interest is not received for the entire period the funds were withheld (up to 30 years).<\/p>\n<p>The second question, contingent on a negative answer to the first, asks whether Article 19 of MiFID I and Article 26 of Implementing Directive 2006\/73\/EC, in conjunction with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93\/13, preclude national provisions that set the starting point for the limitation period as the date when it becomes objectively possible to bring an action, regardless of subjective impediments like lack of awareness. This question addresses whether such a provision effectively limits the right to remuneration interest to the last three years before the action, potentially violating the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.<\/p>\n<p>The most important aspect of this document is the focus on the interplay between EU directives and national laws regarding limitation periods for financial claims. The EFTA Court’s advisory opinion will clarify the extent to which national laws can impose time limits on claims for remuneration interest without undermining the consumer protection goals of EU legislation in the fields of insurance and financial services.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0020\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-20\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Norway has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. Specifically, Norway has not incorporated Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018\/151, which concerns the security of network and information systems of digital service providers, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Norway in violation of its obligations and to order Norway to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document presents the legal and factual background of the case. It begins by stating the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court, followed by a chronological account of the events leading to the action. This includes the initial letter of formal notice sent by the ESA to Norway, Norway’s response indicating ongoing legislative measures, the delivery of a reasoned opinion by the ESA, and Norway’s subsequent reply. The document emphasizes that, as of the date of the application, Norway had not yet incorporated the relevant EU regulation into its internal legal order.<\/p>\n<p>The core of the document lies in its assertion that Norway has failed to meet its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018\/151. This regulation specifies the elements digital service providers must consider for managing risks to the security of network and information systems, as well as parameters for determining the impact of security incidents. The ESA’s action is based on Norway’s failure to incorporate this regulation into its national law despite multiple notifications and deadlines.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0019\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway (Case E-19\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document is an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Norway before the EFTA Court. The ESA claims that Norway has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2016\/1148 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems (the NIS Directive). The ESA argues that Norway has neither adopted the necessary measures to implement the Directive within the prescribed time nor informed the ESA about it. Consequently, the ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Norway in breach of its obligations and order it to bear the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document outlines the legal and factual background of the case. It details the exchange between the ESA and Norway, starting with a letter of formal notice sent by the ESA to Norway, followed by Norway’s response indicating delays in implementation, the delivery of a reasoned opinion by the ESA, and Norway’s subsequent reply. The ESA emphasizes that, as of the date of the application, it has not received any notification or information suggesting that Norway has incorporated the NIS Directive into its national legal order.<\/p>\n<p>The core provision at stake is Norway’s obligation to implement Directive (EU) 2016\/1148, which aims to achieve a high common level of security of network and information systems across the European Union and the EEA. The ESA’s action is based on Norway’s alleged failure to adopt the necessary measures to transpose this Directive into its national law within the stipulated timeframe and to inform the ESA accordingly. The most important aspect of this document is the potential legal consequences for Norway if the EFTA Court rules in favor of the ESA, as it would formally declare Norway in breach of its EEA obligations.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:E2025P0023\"><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Action brought on 8\u00a0October 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-23\/25)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><\/a><\/p>\n<p>This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Specifically, Iceland has not incorporated Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019\/290, which concerns the format for registration and reporting of producers of electrical and electronic equipment, into its national law. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of the EEA Agreement and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The document is structured as follows: It begins with the identification of the case and the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland). It then presents the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court, which includes a declaration of Iceland’s failure to comply with the EEA Agreement and an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The document then outlines the legal and factual background of the case, including the ESA’s initial letter of formal notice to Iceland, Iceland’s lack of response, the subsequent reasoned opinion issued by the ESA, Iceland’s acknowledgment of non-compliance, and the ESA’s decision to bring the matter before the EFTA Court.<\/p>\n<p>The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court to declare that Iceland has failed to incorporate Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019\/290 into its national law, as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. This regulation is crucial for ensuring the proper registration and reporting of producers of electrical and electronic equipment within the EEA, and its absence in Iceland’s legal order represents a breach of its obligations under the EEA Agreement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Acts Review Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2341 – “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” PGI This regulation officially recognizes “Boudin blanc de Li\u00e8ge” as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) within the EU. Article 1 formalizes this recognition by adding the name to the Union register. Article 2 provides a five-year transitional period for companies affiliated with…<\/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-13420","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\/13420","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=13420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}