EU Legislation Analysis<\/title> \n<\/head><\/p>\n<h5>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188 on Pollinator Monitoring<\/h5>\nThis regulation provides a detailed, science-based approach to monitor pollinator populations across EU Member States. It standardizes data collection methods to track the progress of pollinator restoration efforts, focusing on key groups like bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths. The regulation specifies how to select monitoring sites, the observation periods, and precise data collection protocols, including transect walks and light traps. It also mandates the use of expert diagnostics and DNA methods for species identification. Pollinator trends will be assessed using a common pollinator indicator and a pollinator species richness indicator, excluding alien species. The standardized approach ensures comparable and reliable data across the EU, while allowing flexibility to adapt to local conditions.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2177 amending Directive (EU) 2016\/1629 on Inland Waterway Vessels<\/h5>\nThis regulation updates the technical requirements for inland waterway vessels by adopting the latest European Standard, ES-TRIN 2025\/1. The key change mandates that all technical requirements applicable to crafts must adhere to the updated ES-TRIN standard. This new standard introduces rules concerning low flashpoint fuels (methanol), marking of hazardous areas, labelling of fuels, electric propulsion systems, lithium-ion accumulators, use of alternative materials for passenger vessel construction, engine parameter protocols, navigation and information equipment, sewage treatment plants, wheelhouses, sprinkler systems, anchor components and sleeping cabins.<\/p>\n<h5>Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 on Soil Monitoring and Resilience<\/h5>\nKnown as the Soil Monitoring Law, this directive establishes a framework for monitoring soil health across the EU, promoting sustainable management and addressing contamination. The directive requires Member States to monitor soil health and soil sealing\/removal, based on soil descriptors, sampling points, measurements, and remote-sensing data, set criteria for healthy soil condition (sustainable target values and operational trigger values), and adopt a risk-based approach to manage contaminated sites. The most important provision of this directive is that Member States must follow specific methodologies for determining the number and location of sampling points, carrying out soil measurements, and applying quality management system practices in laboratories. Member states should also encourage and support landowners and land managers as regards improving soil health and soil resilience<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2263 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2378 on Automatic Exchange of Information on Crypto-Assets<\/h5>\nThis regulation updates the rules for automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets, yearly assessments, and statistical data. It aligns with Council Directive (EU) 2023\/2226, expanding information exchange to include crypto-assets. The key provisions include updating the computerized format for automatic information exchange and standard forms for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators. Specifically, it details the XML schema for reporting crypto-asset transactions and sets rules for registering and identifying Crypto-Asset Operators.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2410 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 on Entry of Poultry into the Union<\/h5>\nThis regulation amends the list of authorized third countries for poultry and related products entering the EU, specifically concerning Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It adjusts authorized zones based on recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), adding and replacing rows in the tables for these countries to reflect updated disease status and control measures. Certain zones in Canada and the UK are re-authorized following stamping-out policies, while entry from newly affected zones is suspended.<\/p>\n<h5>Regulation (EU) 2025\/2365 on Preventing Plastic Pellet Losses<\/h5>\nThis regulation aims to prevent plastic pellet losses into the environment. It establishes obligations for handling plastic pellets across the supply chain, from production to transport. Economic operators and carriers must avoid losses, take action to contain and clean up spills, and notify authorities. Medium-sized and large enterprises must obtain certification for compliance. The regulation also sets requirements for the transport of plastic pellets by sea and mandates the provision of information on the label, packaging, or safety data sheet of plastic pellets. It mandates competent authorities to make certain information publicly available, promoting transparency and accountability. The right to complain, as well as to have access to justice is also guaranteed.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-524\/22: MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG v. European Commission and SRB (Sberbank d.d. Resolution)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed MeSoFa’s action challenging the Single Resolution Board (SRB)’s decision to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Croatia and the Commission’s endorsement of that scheme. The court found no grounds for annulment. The court also emphasizes the importance of the right to be heard in administrative procedures that may adversely affect a person’s interests, while recognizing that this right may be subject to limitations in certain circumstances, such as when necessary to ensure financial stability. Additionally, the court underscores the obligation of EU institutions to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, while acknowledging that the level of detail required may vary depending on the context and the need to protect confidential information.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-608\/24: Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev v. Council (EU Sanctions)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the Council’s decision to maintain Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to his alleged association with actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. The court found that the Council did not err in its assessment that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF, a sanctioned entity, and that the restrictive measures were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights. The court clarifies that the “association” criterion does not require a formal legal or economic link but can be based on common interests. It also reiterates the standard of judicial review for EU sanctions decisions and confirms that asset freezes are a legitimate restriction on the right to property.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-675\/22: Lavrentios Lavrentiadis v. EUIPO – Dalli-Werke (DALL vs. DALLI)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO to refuse the registration of the EU trade mark “DALL” for cleaning and cosmetic products due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier trade mark “DALLI”. The court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors. It confirmed that goods can be considered identical if the goods covered by the trade mark application are included in a more general category covered by the earlier mark. The court also found that the visual and phonetic aspects of the signs were sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion for the relevant public.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-197\/24: Vers\u00e3ofast v. Autoridade Tribut\u00e1ria e Aduaneira (VAT Exemption for Credit Negotiation)<\/h5>\nThe General Court clarified the scope of the VAT exemption for “negotiation of credit” under Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive. It reaffirmed that the exemption can apply even if the intermediary does not have a contractual link with either party, nor the power to alter the terms of the agreement. The crucial factor is whether the intermediary’s activities, taken as a whole, are aimed at facilitating the conclusion of credit agreements. This clarification is significant for credit intermediaries operating within the EU, as it provides guidance on the VAT treatment of their services.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-277\/23: SBK Art OOO v. Council (EU Sanctions – Ukraine)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed SBK Art OOO’s application for annulment of the Council’s decisions and regulations that maintained the company’s name on the list of entities subject to asset freezing due to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The judgment clarifies the scope and application of the “association criterion” for imposing sanctions and confirms that being associated with a sanctioned entity is a valid basis for sanctions. The court reiterates the standard of judicial review applied to sanctions decisions, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-693\/22: SiLog GmbH v. EUIPO (Trade Mark Dispute)<\/h5>\nThe General Court rejected SiLog GmbH’s challenge to the EUIPO’s decision upholding the invalidity of its EU trade mark “Si Log International” due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier French word mark “SILOG”. The judgment reinforces the principle that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression conveyed by the marks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant elements. The court also clarified how the provisions relating to the assessment of likelihood of confusion and the admissibility of new facts and evidence should be interpreted and applied.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-18\/25: Staatssecretaris van Financi\u00ebn v. X (Excise Duty on Missing Ethyl Alcohol)<\/h5>\nThe General Court clarified the interpretation of “irregularity” in the context of excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement. It specified that the detection of a missing quantity of goods during the unloading of a means of transport constitutes an irregularity detected “during a movement” of excise goods. This means that the destination country is responsible for the excise duty. This distinction is crucial for businesses involved in cross-border movement of excise goods under duty suspension.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-523\/22: MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG v. SRB and Commission (Sberbank Banka D.D.)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed MeSoFa’s action challenging the SRB and Commission decisions concerning the resolution of Sberbank banka d.d. The judgment confirms the SRB’s authority to take resolution action in respect of failing or likely to fail credit institutions and clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements that the SRB must meet when exercising its resolution powers. It also provides guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of Regulation No 806\/2014.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-225\/23: European Federation of Financial Analysts\u2019 Societies v. EUIPO (Trade Mark Dispute)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed the action of the EFFAS challenging EUIPO’s decision to reject the registration of its trade mark, because there was a likelihood of confusion with the earlier trade mark of CFA. The court emphasized the need for a global assessment, considering all relevant factors, including the similarity of the marks and the goods\/services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the perception of the relevant public. The court also highlights the importance of demonstrating peaceful coexistence of the marks on the market to diminish the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<h3>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2188\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188 of 19\u00a0September 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a science-based method for monitoring pollinator diversity and pollinator populations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHere’s a breakdown of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188:<\/p>\n**1. Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThis regulation establishes a standardized, science-based method for EU Member States to monitor pollinator diversity and populations. It aims to ensure consistent data collection across the EU to assess the progress of pollinator restoration efforts, as mandated by Regulation (EU) 2024\/1991 on nature restoration. The regulation specifies which pollinator groups to monitor, how to select monitoring sites, and the data collection protocols to be used. The goal is to track pollinator trends and evaluate the effectiveness of measures designed to reverse pollinator decline.<\/p>\n**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n* **Article 1 (Definitions):** Defines key terms used throughout the regulation, such as “bees,” “hoverflies,” “butterflies,” “moths,” “monitoring site,” and “stratified random sampling.” \n* **Article 2 (Target Species):** Specifies that data collection should focus on bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths. \n* **Article 3 (Monitoring Sites):** Sets out the criteria for selecting monitoring sites, including the use of a LUCAS master grid, stratified random sampling by biogeographical region and ecosystem type (agricultural, forest, and other), and minimum distances between sites. It also lists exclusion criteria for sites that are inaccessible or unsuitable for monitoring. \n* **Article 4 (Observation Period):** Requires Member States to define an observation period for data collection, based on pollinator activity, which remains consistent throughout an assessment period. \n* **Article 5 (Data Collection Protocol for Bees, Hoverflies, Butterflies and day-active moths):** Details the methodology for transect walks, including frequency, environmental parameters to record, transect length, speed and observation space. \n* **Article 6 (Data Collection Protocol for night-active moths):** Details the methodology for using light traps, including frequency, environmental parameters to record, placement of traps and light source specifications. \n* **Article 7 (Data Collection Protocol for Rare Pollinator Species):** Focuses on targeted monitoring of critically endangered bee, hoverfly, and butterfly species, allowing Member States to limit the number of monitored species to 15 if necessary. \n* **Article 8 (Species Identification):** Mandates that Member States identify specimens to the species level using expert diagnostics, DNA methods, AI, or other scientifically proven methods. \n* **Article 9 (Assessment of Pollinator Population Trends):** Describes how pollinator abundance and diversity trends will be assessed using the data collected, including the calculation of a common pollinator indicator and a pollinator species richness indicator. Alien species are excluded from the assessment. \n* **Article 10 (Assessment of the Effectiveness of Restoration Measures):** Specifies that the common pollinator indicator should be calculated separately for agricultural, forest, and other ecosystems to assess the impact of restoration efforts. \n* **Article 11 (Entry into Force):** States that the regulation comes into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. \n* **Annex I:** Sets the minimum number of monitoring sites for each Member State. \n* **Annex II:** Details the methodology for calculating the common pollinator indicator, including annual species abundance and diversity indices. \n* **Annex III:** Explains how to calculate the pollinator species richness indicator.<\/p>\n**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n* **Standardized Monitoring Method:** The regulation provides a detailed, standardized method for monitoring pollinators, ensuring that data collected across different Member States is comparable and reliable. \n* **Flexibility for Local Conditions:** While standardized, the regulation allows for some flexibility to adapt the monitoring methods to local environmental conditions and specific pollinator activity periods. \n* **Focus on Key Pollinator Groups:** By focusing on bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths, the regulation targets the most important pollinator groups for which effective monitoring methods are available. \n* **Use of Indicators:** The regulation introduces two key indicators \u2013 the common pollinator indicator and the pollinator species richness indicator \u2013 to assess pollinator population trends and the effectiveness of restoration measures. \n* **Minimum Number of Monitoring Sites:** Annex I specifies the minimum number of monitoring sites required for each Member State, ensuring sufficient data coverage across the EU.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2177\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2177 of 9\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive (EU)\u00a02016\/1629 of the European Parliament and of the Council to update the reference to the most recent European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels (ES-TRIN 2025)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2177 updates the technical requirements for inland waterway vessels by amending Directive (EU) 2016\/1629. The key change involves updating the reference standard to the most recent European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels, specifically ES-TRIN 2025\/1. This update ensures uniformity in the development of technical requirements for inland waterway vessels within the Union.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces Annex II of Directive (EU) 2016\/1629, specifying that the technical requirements applicable to crafts are those set out in ES-TRIN standard 2025\/1. Article 2 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from 1 January 2026. The annex contains the updated text for Annex II of Directive (EU) 2016\/1629, which simply references the ES-TRIN 2025\/1 standard.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is the replacement of Annex II in Directive (EU) 2016\/1629, which now mandates the use of ES-TRIN 2025\/1 for technical requirements applicable to inland waterway vessels. This new standard introduces rules concerning low flashpoint fuels (methanol), marking of hazardous areas, labelling of fuels, electric propulsion systems, lithium-ion accumulators, use of alternative materials for passenger vessel construction, engine parameter protocols, navigation and information equipment, sewage treatment plants, wheelhouses, sprinkler systems, anchor components and sleeping cabins.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025L2360\"><\/p>\n<h3>Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 November 2025 on soil monitoring and resilience (Soil Monitoring Law)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHere’s a breakdown of the key aspects of the Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 on soil monitoring and resilience, also known as the Soil Monitoring Law.<\/p>\n**1. Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 aims to establish a comprehensive framework for monitoring soil health across the European Union, promoting sustainable soil management, and addressing soil contamination. It seeks to achieve healthy soils by 2050, enabling them to provide essential ecosystem services, mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, and enhance resilience against natural disasters while ensuring food security. The directive focuses on monitoring and assessment, promoting soil resilience, and managing contaminated sites, without imposing mandatory targets for soil health achievement by Member States.<\/p>\n**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe Directive is structured into seven chapters, covering general provisions, monitoring and assessment of soil health, soil resilience, management of contaminated sites, funding and reporting, delegation and committee procedures, and final provisions.<\/p>\n* **Chapter I (General Provisions):** Defines the objectives, scope, and key terms like “soil health,” “soil resilience,” and “soil contamination.” It mandates Member States to establish soil districts and soil units for administrative and monitoring purposes. \n* **Chapter II (Monitoring and Assessment of Soil Health):** Establishes a framework for monitoring soil health and soil sealing\/removal, based on soil descriptors, sampling points, measurements, and remote-sensing data. It tasks the Commission and the EEA with creating a digital soil health data portal. It defines soil descriptors, criteria for healthy soil condition (sustainable target values and operational trigger values), and soil sealing\/removal indicators. \n* **Chapter III (Soil Resilience):** Focuses on supporting soil health and resilience through advice, awareness, research, and financial support to landowners and managers. It outlines land take mitigation principles to minimize the impact of soil sealing and removal. \n* **Chapter IV (Management of Contaminated Sites):** Requires Member States to adopt a risk-based and stepwise approach for identifying, investigating, and managing contaminated sites. It mandates the establishment of a national register of potentially contaminated and contaminated sites. \n* **Chapter V (Funding, Reporting, and Information):** Addresses Union funding mechanisms, reporting obligations for Member States, and public access to soil health information. \n* **Chapter VI (Delegation and Committee Procedure):** Specifies the delegation of power to the Commission for adopting delegated acts and the committee procedures for implementing the Directive. \n* **Chapter VII (Final Provisions):** Covers access to justice, support by the Commission, evaluation and review of the Directive, transposition into national law, and entry into force.<\/p>\n**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n* **Soil Monitoring Framework (Article 6):** Member States must establish a framework for regular and accurate monitoring of soil health and soil sealing\/removal. \n* **Soil Descriptors and Criteria (Article 7 & Annex I):** Member States must apply specific soil descriptors and criteria for assessing soil health, including setting operational trigger values that initiate support for soil health and resilience. \n* **Measurements and Methodologies (Article 9 & Annex II):** Member States must follow specific methodologies for determining the number and location of sampling points, carrying out soil measurements, and applying quality management system practices in laboratories. \n* **Risk-Based Approach for Contaminated Sites (Article 13):** Member States must establish a risk-based approach for identifying, investigating, and managing contaminated sites. \n* **Register of Contaminated Sites (Article 17):** Member States are required to set up and maintain a publicly accessible national register of potentially and actually contaminated sites. \n* **Support for Soil Health and Resilience (Article 11):** Member states should encourage and support landowners and land managers as regards improving soil health and soil resilience and facilitate such improvement by landowners and land managers by, inter alia ensuring easy and equal access to impartial and independent science-based advice and to information, training activities and capacity building for soil managers, landowners, land managers and relevant authorities with regard to practices that improve soil health and soil resilience.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2263\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2263 of 12\u00a0November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02015\/2378 as regards the standard forms and computerised formats for the mandatory automatic exchange of information on reportable crypto-assets, the communication of the yearly assessment\u00a0and the list of statistical data to be provided by Member States under Council Directive\u00a02011\/16\/EU<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a description of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2263 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2378 regarding the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets, yearly assessments, and statistical data under Council Directive 2011\/16\/EU. The regulation aims to update the standard forms and computerised formats for the mandatory automatic exchange of information on reportable crypto-assets, the communication of the yearly assessment, and the list of statistical data to be provided by Member States. These amendments are necessary to align with the changes introduced by Council Directive (EU) 2023\/2226, which expanded the scope of automatic information exchange to include crypto-assets. The regulation also establishes practical arrangements for the registration and identification of Crypto-Asset Operators that are Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers.<\/p>\nThe regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2378 by adding a new paragraph to Article 2, specifying that the computerised format for the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets must comply with Annex XVIII. It replaces paragraph 2 of Article 2c, requiring Member States to communicate the yearly assessment to the Commission electronically before May 1st each year. A new Article 2g is added, detailing the standard forms for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators, the retention period for deleted information, and rules for changing the Member State of single registration. Annex VIII is replaced, Annex X is amended, and new Annexes XVIII and XIX are added, providing the specific formats and requirements for the exchange of information.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions for practical use are the new Annexes XVIII and XIX, which provide the technical specifications for the computerised format for automatic information exchange and the standard forms for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators. Annex XVIII details the XML schema for reporting crypto-asset transactions, including types of transactions, data elements, and attributes. Annex XIX specifies the form for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators, the format of individual identification numbers, retention periods for deleted information, and procedures for changing the Member State of single registration. These annexes are crucial for Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers and Member States to ensure compliance with the updated reporting requirements.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2410\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2410 of 24\u00a0November 2025 amending Annexes\u00a0V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2410 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, specifically Annexes V and XIV, concerning the entry of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds into the Union from third countries. The regulation updates the lists of authorized third countries, territories, or zones thereof, focusing on Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in response to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).<\/p>\nThe regulation is structured into two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, adding and replacing rows in the tables for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States to reflect the updated disease status and implemented control measures.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of this act are the specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404. These amendments modify the authorized zones for the entry of poultry and related products into the EU from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, based on the latest HPAI outbreaks. The regulation re-authorizes certain zones in Canada and the United Kingdom following the implementation of stamping-out policies and cleaning\/disinfection, while also suspending entry from newly affected zones in all three countries.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2365\"><\/p>\n<h3>Regulation (EU) 2025\/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 November 2025 on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHere is a detailed description of Regulation (EU) 2025\/2365:<\/p>\n**1. Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nRegulation (EU) 2025\/2365 aims to prevent the loss of plastic pellets into the environment, thereby reducing microplastic pollution. It establishes obligations for handling plastic pellets throughout the entire supply chain, from production to transport, to achieve zero pellet loss. The regulation targets economic operators, EU and non-EU carriers, and other parties involved in the handling and transport of plastic pellets. It introduces measures for risk management, containment, clean-up, and compliance verification to minimize environmental harm.<\/p>\n**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe Regulation consists of 26 articles and 5 annexes, covering various aspects of plastic pellet handling and loss prevention.<\/p>\n* **Subject Matter and Scope (Article 1):** Defines the regulation’s objective and specifies the natural and legal persons to whom it applies, including economic operators handling significant quantities of plastic pellets, container cleaning installations, EU and non-EU carriers, and parties involved in maritime transport. \n* **Definitions (Article 2):** Provides definitions for key terms such as “plastic pellets,” “spill,” “loss,” “economic operator,” “EU carrier,” “non-EU carrier,” and “certifier.” \n* **General Obligations (Article 3):** Requires economic operators, EU carriers, and non-EU carriers to avoid losses of plastic pellets and to take immediate action to contain and clean up any losses that occur. It also mandates the notification of installations and transport activities to competent authorities. \n* **Authorised Representatives of Non-EU Carriers (Article 4):** Requires non-EU carriers to designate an authorised representative within the EU to ensure compliance with specific obligations under the regulation. \n* **Obligations Regarding the Handling of Plastic Pellets (Article 5):** Outlines specific actions for economic operators, including establishing a risk management plan, installing equipment, and executing procedures to prevent, contain, and clean up spills and losses. It also sets requirements for EU and non-EU carriers, such as training staff and keeping records of losses. \n* **Certification (Article 6):** Requires medium-sized and large enterprises operating installations handling significant quantities of plastic pellets to obtain certification from accredited certifiers to demonstrate compliance with the regulation. \n* **Compliance through Permits (Article 7):** Allows Member States to exempt economic operators from certain obligations if their operations are subject to permits that ensure compliance with the regulation. \n* **Compliance through Environmental Management Systems (Article 8):** Provides exemptions for economic operators registered with EMAS or implementing other environmental management systems that meet specific criteria. \n* **Accreditation of Certifiers (Article 9):** Sets out requirements for the accreditation of certifiers, ensuring their independence, expertise, and impartiality. \n* **Obligation to Provide Information (Article 10):** Requires manufacturers, importers, downstream users, and distributors placing plastic pellets on the market to provide specific information on the label, packaging, or safety data sheet. \n* **Public Access to Information (Article 11):** Mandates competent authorities to make certain information publicly available, including notifications, risk management plans, self-declarations of conformity, and certificates. \n* **Obligations Regarding the Transport of Plastic Pellets by Sea in Freight Containers (Article 12):** Sets requirements for shippers, operators, and masters of seagoing vessels to ensure the safe packing, stowage, and transport of plastic pellets to minimize hazards to the marine environment. \n* **Verification of Compliance and Reporting (Article 13):** Requires competent authorities to verify compliance with the regulation and Member States to submit reports to the Commission on its implementation. \n* **Incidents and Accidents (Article 14):** Establishes procedures for reporting and managing incidents and accidents that cause losses of plastic pellets affecting human health or the environment. \n* **Non-Compliance (Article 15):** Outlines measures to be taken in the event of an infringement of the regulation, including informing the competent authority, restoring compliance, and complying with complementary measures. \n* **Designation and Powers of Competent Authorities (Article 16):** Requires Member States to designate competent authorities and confer on them the necessary powers of inspection and enforcement. \n* **Information and Assistance Regarding Compliance (Article 17):** Mandates the Commission to develop awareness-raising and training material and Member States to provide access to information and assistance regarding compliance. \n* **Standards (Article 18):** Provides for the development of harmonized standards for estimating quantities of losses. \n* **Complaint-Handling and Access to Justice (Article 19):** Ensures the right of natural or legal persons to submit complaints and have access to justice in cases of non-compliance with the regulation. \n* **Penalties (Article 20):** Requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties for infringements of the regulation, including administrative financial penalties and criminal penalties. \n* **Compensation (Article 21):** Ensures that individuals affected by damage to human health resulting from an infringement of the regulation have the right to claim and obtain compensation. \n* **Amendments to Annexes (Article 22):** Empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend the annexes to the regulation based on technical progress and scientific developments. \n* **Exercise of the Delegation (Article 23):** Sets out the conditions for the exercise of the delegation of power to the Commission. \n* **Committee Procedure (Article 24):** Establishes a committee to assist the Commission in the implementation of the regulation. \n* **Evaluation and Review (Article 25):** Requires the Commission to conduct an evaluation of the implementation of the regulation and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council. \n* **Entry into Force and Application (Article 26):** Specifies the date of entry into force and application of the regulation.<\/p>\n**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n* **Risk Management Plan (Article 5 and Annex I):** Economic operators must establish and maintain a risk management plan for each installation, identifying potential spill and loss locations, estimating quantities of losses, and describing the equipment and procedures in place to prevent, contain, and clean up spills and losses. \n* **Certification (Article 6):** Medium-sized and large enterprises operating installations handling significant quantities of plastic pellets must obtain certification from accredited certifiers to demonstrate compliance with the regulation. \n* **Obligations for Carriers (Article 5 and Annex III):** EU and non-EU carriers must implement specific actions to prevent, contain, and clean up spills and losses during transport, including verifying packaging integrity, communicating safe stowage requirements, and carrying equipment for clean-up. \n* **Public Access to Information (Article 11):** Competent authorities must make information about installations, risk management plans, and certificates publicly available, promoting transparency and accountability. \n* **Complaint-Handling and Access to Justice (Article 19):** Natural or legal persons have the right to submit complaints and have access to justice in cases of non-compliance, ensuring that concerns about plastic pellet losses can be addressed effectively. \n* **Information Requirements (Article 10 and Annex V):** Suppliers of plastic pellets must provide clear and visible information on the label, packaging, or safety data sheet, including a pictogram and a warning statement about the environmental hazards of pellet loss.<\/p>\nThis Regulation introduces a comprehensive framework to prevent plastic pellet losses and reduce microplastic pollution, with specific obligations for economic operators, carriers, and other parties involved in the plastic pellet supply chain.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62022TJ0524\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2025.MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sber Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sberbank Europe AG v European Commission and Single Resolution Board.Economic and monetary union \u2013 Banking union \u2013 Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) \u2013 Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail \u2013 Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank \u2013 Action for annulment \u2013 Interest in bringing proceedings \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 Effective judicial protection \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014.Case T-524\/22.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of November 26, 2025, in Case T-524\/22, involving MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG (formerly Sberbank Europe AG) against the European Commission and the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The case concerns the adoption of a resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d. (Sberbank Croatia) and the applicant’s challenge to the SRB’s decision and the Commission’s endorsement of that decision. The applicant sought annulment of the SRB’s decision to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Croatia and the Commission’s decision endorsing that scheme, arguing that its rights as a shareholder were infringed. The General Court dismissed the action, finding no grounds for annulment.<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses the admissibility and substance of the applicant’s claims against the SRB’s Decision SRB\/EES\/2022\/21 and the Commission’s Decision (EU) 2022\/948. The court examines whether the SRB exceeded its powers, infringed essential procedural requirements (including the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons), and made errors in its assessment of Sberbank Croatia’s financial situation. The structure of the judgment includes sections on the background of the dispute, the forms of order sought, and the court’s legal analysis of each plea raised by the applicant. The court also considers arguments from interveners such as the Republic of Croatia, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Central Bank (ECB).<\/p>\nThe main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are those concerning the admissibility of the action, the right to be heard, and the obligation to state reasons. The court clarifies that while a resolution scheme adopted by the SRB is not directly challengeable, the Commission’s endorsement of that scheme is subject to judicial review. The court also emphasizes the importance of the right to be heard in administrative procedures that may adversely affect a person’s interests, while recognizing that this right may be subject to limitations in certain circumstances, such as when necessary to ensure financial stability. Additionally, the court underscores the obligation of EU institutions to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, while acknowledging that the level of detail required may vary depending on the context and the need to protect confidential information.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0608\"><\/p>\n<h3>Arr\u00eat du Tribunal (premi\u00e8re chambre) du 26 novembre 2025.#Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev contre Conseil de l’Union europ\u00e9enne.#Politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 commune \u2013 Mesures restrictives prises eu \u00e9gard aux actions compromettant ou mena\u00e7ant l\u2019int\u00e9grit\u00e9 territoriale, la souverainet\u00e9 et l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance de l\u2019Ukraine \u2013 Gel des fonds \u2013 Liste des personnes, des entit\u00e9s et des organismes auxquels s\u2019applique le gel des fonds et des ressources \u00e9conomiques \u2013 Maintien du nom du requ\u00e9rant sur la liste \u2013 Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la d\u00e9cision 2014\/145\/PESC \u2013 Notion d\u2019\u201cassociation\u201d \u2013 Erreur d\u2019appr\u00e9ciation \u2013 Droit de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 \u2013 Pr\u00e9somption d\u2019innocence \u2013 Proportionnalit\u00e9.#Affaire T-608\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of November 26, 2025, in Case T-608\/24, between Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev and the Council of the European Union. The case concerns restrictive measures (asset freeze) imposed by the EU against individuals and entities undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.<\/p>\n**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev’s challenge to the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to his alleged association with actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. The General Court dismisses Bazhaev’s application, upholding the Council’s decision to keep him on the sanctions list. The court finds that the Council did not commit an error in assessing that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF, a sanctioned entity, and that the restrictive measures were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Introduction:** Identifies the applicant (Bazhaev) and the defendant (Council), and outlines the legal basis of the action (Article 263 TFEU). \n* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the context of EU restrictive measures against those undermining Ukraine’s integrity, including previous decisions and regulations that led to Bazhaev’s initial listing and subsequent renewals. \n* **Facts Subsequent to the Introduction of the Action:** Notes the Council’s decision in March 2025 to renew the restrictive measures against Bazhaev for another six months. \n* **Conclusions of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s request for annulment of the Council’s decisions and the Council’s request for dismissal of the action. \n* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment and is divided into the following parts: \n * **First Plea: Error of Assessment:** Addresses Bazhaev’s argument that the Council erred in considering that he met the criteria for sanctions, specifically concerning his being an “influential businessperson operating in Russia” and his “association” with VEB.RF. \n * **Preliminary Considerations:** Sets out the standard of judicial review applicable to EU sanctions decisions. \n * **Application of the Association Criterion:** Examines whether the Council was justified in concluding that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF. The court upholds the Council’s assessment, finding that Bazhaev’s connection to VEB.RF through Russian Platinum, a major mining company, demonstrated common interests and justified the sanctions. \n * **Second Plea: Violation of the Principle of Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** Addresses Bazhaev’s argument that the sanctions violated his fundamental rights, including the right to property and the presumption of innocence, and that they were disproportionate. The court rejects these arguments, finding that the sanctions were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights. \n * **Request for Adoption of a Measure of Organisation of Procedure:** Rejects the Council’s request for the applicant to produce additional documents. \n * **Costs:** Orders Bazhaev to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\nThe judgment primarily concerns the application of existing EU sanctions legislation to a specific individual. It does not introduce new legislation or amend existing rules. The key provision at issue is Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014\/145\/CFSP, as amended, which allows for sanctions against “influential businesspersons operating in Russia” and those “involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.” The judgment also interprets the concept of “association” as a basis for sanctions.<\/p>\n**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\nThe most important aspects of this judgment are:<\/p>\n* **Interpretation of “Association”:** The court clarifies that the “association” criterion does not require a formal legal or economic link but can be based on common interests. \n* **Standard of Judicial Review:** The judgment reiterates the standard of judicial review for EU sanctions decisions, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis. \n* **Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** The court confirms that asset freezes are a legitimate restriction on the right to property, provided they are proportionate and pursue a legitimate objective. \n* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment confirms that the burden of proof lies with the Council to establish the grounds for sanctions, but it does not need to produce all the information.<\/p>\n: This judgment is relevant to the EU’s sanctions regime concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It clarifies the scope and application of the sanctions criteria, particularly concerning “association” with sanctioned entities. This has implications for individuals and entities doing business in or with Russia, as they could be subject to sanctions if they are deemed to be associated with individuals or entities involved in actions against Ukraine.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0515\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 November 2025.Lavrentios Lavrentiadis v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Opposition proceedings \u2013 Application for EU word mark DALL \u2013 Earlier EU word mark DALLI \u2013 Relative ground for refusal \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.Case T-515\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled on the likelihood of confusion between two word marks, “DALL” and “DALLI,” both used for goods in Class 3, which includes cleaning and cosmetic products. The court sided with the owner of the earlier trade mark “DALLI,” preventing the registration of “DALL” due to the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment is as follows: \n1. **Background:** Describes the application for the EU trade mark DALL by Lavrentios Lavrentiadis and the opposition filed by Dalli-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, based on their earlier EU trade mark DALLI. It also outlines the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which both sided with Dalli-Werke, finding a likelihood of confusion. \n2. **Forms of order sought:** Lists the requests made by the applicant (Lavrentiadis), EUIPO, and the intervener (Dalli-Werke) regarding the annulment or dismissal of the contested decision and the allocation of costs. \n3. **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the court. \n * **Admissibility of evidence:** The court first addresses the admissibility of new evidence submitted by the applicant, ultimately ruling it inadmissible because it was not presented during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. \n * **Substance:** The court consolidates the applicant’s pleas into a single plea alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017\/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion. The court then proceeds to analyze the relevant public, the comparison of the goods, and the comparison of the signs. \n * **Relevant public:** The court agrees with the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the relevant public consists of the general public and professionals with an average to higher-than-average level of attention, and that the relevant territory is the European Union. \n * **Comparison of goods:** The court upholds the Board of Appeal’s finding that the goods covered by the marks are either identical or similar, despite the applicant’s arguments about different manufacturing locations and labeling requirements. \n * **Comparison of signs:** The court analyzes the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, finding that they are visually and phonetically similar to an average degree, and that a conceptual comparison is not possible for the non-German-speaking public. \n * **Likelihood of confusion:** Based on the similarity of the goods and signs, the court concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, and therefore dismisses the action. \n4. **Costs:** The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the intervener, while EUIPO bears its own costs.<\/p>\nThe main provisions of the act: \n* The court emphasizes that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors. \n* It confirms that goods can be considered identical if the goods covered by the trade mark application are included in a more general category covered by the earlier mark. \n* The court states that the visual aspect of the signs is of greater importance for goods intended for mass consumption sold in self-service stores. \n* It reiterates that the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion. \n* The court clarifies that the origin of the goods refers to the manufacturing sector or type of undertaking, not necessarily the geographical origin indicated on the packaging. \n* The court confirms that it is sufficient that a relative ground for refusal exists in part of the European Union.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0657\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) of 26 November 2025.Vers\u00e3ofast, Unipessoal, Lda. v Autoridade Tribut\u00e1ria e Aduaneira.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Common system of VAT \u2013 Article 135(1)(b) of Directive 2006\/112\/EC \u2013 Exemptions for other activities \u2013 Negotiation of credit \u2013 Activities of a credit intermediary \u2013 Classification.Case T-657\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive, which concerns exemptions for certain activities, specifically the negotiation of credit. The case revolves around a Portuguese company, Vers\u00e3ofast, which acts as a credit intermediary, and the question of whether its activities should be exempt from VAT. The court is asked to clarify if the services provided by Vers\u00e3ofast, which include attracting mortgage loan customers, assisting them with documentation, and communicating with credit institutions, qualify as “negotiation of credit” even though Vers\u00e3ofast does not have the power to act on behalf of the banks or influence the credit terms.<\/p>\nThe judgment clarifies the scope of the VAT exemption for “negotiation of credit” under Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive. It reaffirms that exemptions must be interpreted strictly but also as independent concepts of EU law to ensure uniform application across Member States. The court refers to previous case law to define “negotiation” as an activity carried out by an intermediary who is not a party to the contract, but whose actions are essential for the parties to enter into a contract. The judgment emphasizes that the exemption can apply even if the intermediary does not have a contractual link with either party, nor the power to alter the terms of the agreement.<\/p>\nThe key provision of the judgment is its conclusion that the activities of a credit intermediary like Vers\u00e3ofast can be considered “negotiation of credit” and thus exempt from VAT, even if the intermediary lacks the power to bind the credit institution or influence the terms of the credit offers. The crucial factor is whether the intermediary’s activities, taken as a whole, are aimed at facilitating the conclusion of credit agreements. This clarification is significant for credit intermediaries operating within the EU, as it provides guidance on the VAT treatment of their services.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0607\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 November 2025.SBK Art OOO v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy \u2013 Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine \u2013 Freezing of funds \u2013 List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources \u2013 Maintenance of the applicant\u2019s name on the list \u2013 Concept of \u2018association\u2019 \u2013 Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014\/145\/CFSP \u2013 Article 3(1), in fine, of Regulation (EU) No 269\/2014 \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Rights of the defence \u2013 Error of assessment \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Plea of illegality.Case T-607\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed on SBK Art OOO, a Russian company, in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The court dismisses SBK Art OOO’s application for annulment of the Council’s decisions and regulations that maintained the company’s name on the list of entities subject to asset freezing.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses several pleas raised by SBK Art OOO against the Council’s decision to keep it on the sanctions list. These include:<\/p>\n* **Plea of Illegality:** SBK Art OOO challenges the legality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, specifically the “association criterion” (being associated with a sanctioned entity) and criteria related to supporting or benefiting from the Russian government. The court rejects the challenge to criteria (f) and (g) as inadmissible and the challenge to the association criterion as unfounded. \n* **Infringement of the Obligation to State Reasons:** SBK Art OOO argues that the Council did not provide sufficient reasons for maintaining its name on the sanctions list. The court rejects this, finding that the Council’s reasoning was adequate. \n* **Breach of the Right to Be Heard:** SBK Art OOO claims it was not given an opportunity to be heard before the sanctions were extended. The court dismisses this, noting that the sanctions were maintained on the same grounds as before, without new evidence. \n* **Error of Assessment:** SBK Art OOO argues that the Council incorrectly assessed the facts, particularly regarding whether Sberbank (a sanctioned entity) still controlled SBK Art OOO after a purported sale. The court finds that the Council provided sufficient evidence to justify its assessment. \n* **Breach of the Principle of Proportionality:** SBK Art OOO contends that the sanctions were disproportionate. The court rejects this, finding that the sanctions were appropriate and necessary to achieve the EU’s objectives.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n* **Association Criterion:** The judgment clarifies the scope and application of the “association criterion” for imposing sanctions. It confirms that being associated with a sanctioned entity is a valid basis for sanctions, even without a direct link to the situation in Ukraine. \n* **Standard of Review:** The judgment reiterates the standard of judicial review applied to sanctions decisions, emphasizing that while the Council has broad discretion, the courts must ensure the factual basis for the decision is sufficiently solid. \n* **Right to Be Heard:** The judgment clarifies that the right to be heard does not require the Council to re-disclose evidence or hold a new hearing when sanctions are maintained on the same grounds as before. \n* **Derogations:** The judgment discusses the application of derogations from the asset freeze, particularly in the context of the sale of SBK Art OOO. It emphasizes that such sales require authorization from competent national authorities.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0572\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2025.SiLog GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 EU figurative mark Si Log International \u2013 Earlier national word mark SILOG \u2013 Relative ground for invalidity \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001 \u2013 Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal \u2013 Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017\/1001 \u2013 Right to be heard.Case T-572\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by SiLog GmbH against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns an application for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark, specifically the figurative mark “Si Log International,” based on an earlier French word mark “SILOG.” The core issue is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, which is a relative ground for invalidity under EU trade mark law.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment addresses several pleas raised by SiLog GmbH, the applicant. These include arguments that EUIPO’s Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, specifically regarding the similarity of services and signs, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the overall assessment of confusion. The applicant also argued that EUIPO wrongly admitted certain evidence submitted late by Silog SAS, the intervener, and that its right to be heard was breached. The General Court systematically addresses and rejects each of these pleas, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the assessment of likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001) and the admissibility of new facts and evidence before the Board of Appeal (Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017\/1001). The judgment clarifies how these provisions should be interpreted and applied, particularly in cases involving figurative and word marks, and the extent to which EUIPO has discretion in admitting late evidence. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression conveyed by the marks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant elements.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0690\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) of 26 November 2025.Inspecteur van de Douane v FL.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Taxation \u2013 Excise duties \u2013 Directive 2008\/118\/EC \u2013 Article 10(2) and (4) of Directive 2008\/118 \u2013 Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods \u2013 Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement \u2013 Detection of the irregularity during the movement \u2013 Quantity of missing goods detected when unloading the means of transport.Case T-690\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) regarding the interpretation of Article 10(2) and (4) of Council Directive 2008\/118\/EC concerning excise duties. The case revolves around a dispute regarding excise duty on a missing quantity of ethyl alcohol detected during the delivery from Belgium to the Netherlands. The core issue is determining in which Member State the excise duty is chargeable when goods are lost during a duty suspension arrangement.<\/p>\nThe judgment clarifies the interpretation of “irregularity” in the context of excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement. It specifies that the detection of a missing quantity of goods during the unloading of a means of transport constitutes an irregularity detected “during a movement” of excise goods. This means that Article 10(2) of Directive 2008\/118 applies, and the excise duty is chargeable in the Member State where the irregularity was detected, which is the State of arrival. The judgment also clarifies that Article 10(4) applies when the irregularity is detected after the movement of goods has ended.<\/p>\nThe most important provision clarified is that the detection of missing excise goods during unloading is considered to be “during the movement,” making the destination country responsible for the excise duty. This distinction is crucial for businesses involved in cross-border movement of excise goods under duty suspension, as it clarifies when and where they are liable to pay excise duties in case of irregularities.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62022TJ0523\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2025.MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sber Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sberbank Europe AG v European Commission and Single Resolution Board.Economic and monetary union \u2013 Banking union \u2013 Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) \u2013 Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail \u2013 Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank banka \u2013 Action for annulment \u2013 Interest in bringing proceedings \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 Effective judicial protection \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014.Case T-523\/22.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action for annulment brought by MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG (formerly Sberbank Europe AG) against decisions made by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and the European Commission concerning the resolution of Sberbank banka d.d. (Sberbank Slovenia). The court dismisses the action, upholding the SRB’s decision to implement a resolution scheme for Sberbank Slovenia and the Commission’s endorsement of that scheme.<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses the admissibility of the action, several pleas raised by the applicant, including allegations that the SRB exceeded its powers, infringed essential procedural requirements (such as the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons), made substantive errors in its analysis of whether Sberbank Slovenia was failing or likely to fail (FOLTF), and failed to choose the least burdensome resolution tool. The court rejects all of these pleas, finding that the SRB’s decisions were lawful and that the applicant’s rights were not violated.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Background:** Describes the context of the dispute, including the applicant’s role as the parent company of Sberbank Slovenia, the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Sberbank Europe and its subsidiaries, and the decisions taken by the ECB and the SRB regarding the resolution of Sberbank Slovenia. \n2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the remedies sought by the applicant and the responses of the defendants and interveners. \n3. **Law:** Contains the court’s legal analysis and reasoning, divided into sections addressing the admissibility of the action and the substance of the applicant’s pleas. \n4. **Admissibility of the action:** Examines whether the applicant has a sufficient interest in bringing the proceedings. \n5. **Substance:** Addresses the nine pleas raised by the applicant, including allegations of procedural and substantive errors in the SRB’s decision-making process. \n6. **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for paying the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act for its use are: \n* The rejection of the applicant’s claim that the SRB exceeded its powers by adopting a resolution scheme for Sberbank Slovenia without also resolving its parent company, Sberbank Europe. \n* The finding that the SRB did not infringe the applicant’s right to be heard, as the urgency of the situation justified limiting that right. \n* The conclusion that the SRB adequately stated the reasons for its decision and did not commit any manifest errors of assessment in determining that Sberbank Slovenia was FOLTF and that resolution was necessary in the public interest. \n* The rejection of the applicant’s argument that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome resolution tool, as the sale-of-business tool was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. \n* The finding that the SRB complied with the procedural and substantive rules relating to the sale-of-business tool and the valuation of Sberbank Slovenia’s assets and liabilities. \n* The rejection of the applicant’s claim that the SRB infringed the principle of proportionality or failed to consider alternative solutions. \n* The conclusion that the SRB adequately justified its decision to depart from the resolution plan, as the circumstances had changed since the plan was adopted.<\/p>\nThis judgment confirms the SRB’s authority to take resolution action in respect of failing or likely to fail credit institutions and clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements that the SRB must meet when exercising its resolution powers. It also provides guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of Regulation No 806\/2014, such as the conditions for resolution, the right to be heard, and the obligation to state reasons.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0632\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2025.European Federation of Financial Analysts’Societies (EFFAS) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Opposition proceedings \u2013 Application for EU figurative mark CEFA EFFAS Certified European Financial Analyst \u2013 Earlier EU word mark CFA \u2013 Relative ground for refusal \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001 \u2013 Absence of peaceful coexistence.Case T-632\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute between the European Federation of Financial Analysts\u2019 Societies (EFFAS) and the CFA Institute. The case concerns an application by EFFAS to register a figurative EU trade mark, which was opposed by CFA Institute based on its earlier EU word mark “CFA”. The court ultimately ruled in favor of CFA Institute, dismissing EFFAS’s action.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Background:** Describes the application for the EU trade mark by EFFAS, the opposition filed by CFA Institute based on its earlier trade mark, and the decisions of the EUIPO Opposition Division and Board of Appeal. \n2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the requests made by EFFAS, EUIPO, and CFA Institute regarding the annulment of the contested decision and the allocation of costs. \n3. **Law:** Details the legal reasoning of the General Court, including: \n * The subject matter of the action, clarifying that EFFAS seeks annulment of the decision only in part. \n * The single plea in law raised by EFFAS, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017\/1001, divided into two complaints: peaceful coexistence and similarity of the signs. \n * Admissibility of evidence, ruling certain evidence submitted for the first time before the Court as inadmissible. \n * Assessment of the peaceful coexistence of the signs, finding that EFFAS did not sufficiently demonstrate peaceful coexistence during the proceedings before EUIPO. \n * Assessment of the likelihood of confusion, including analysis of the relevant territory, public, level of attention, comparison of goods\/services, comparison of the signs (visual, phonetic, conceptual), and an overall assessment. \n4. **Costs:** Determines that EFFAS, as the unsuccessful party, must pay the costs incurred by CFA Institute, while EUIPO bears its own costs.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The court emphasizes the need for a global assessment, considering all relevant factors, including the similarity of the marks and the goods\/services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the perception of the relevant public. The court also highlights the importance of demonstrating peaceful coexistence of the marks on the market to diminish the likelihood of confusion. In this specific case, the court found that the similarities between the marks, combined with the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark and the failure to prove peaceful coexistence, created a likelihood of confusion, justifying the refusal to register EFFAS’s trade mark.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"EU Legislation Analysis Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188 on Pollinator Monitoring This regulation provides a detailed, science-based approach to monitor pollinator populations across EU Member States. It standardizes data collection methods to track the progress of pollinator restoration efforts, focusing on key groups like bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths. The regulation specifies how to select…<\/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-13530","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\/13530","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=13530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":13530,"date":"2025-11-27T09:15:39","date_gmt":"2025-11-27T07:15:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-27-11-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-27T09:15:39","modified_gmt":"2025-11-27T07:15:39","slug":"review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-27-11-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-27-11-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the EU legislation for 27\/11\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\nEU Legislation Analysis<\/title> \n<\/head><\/p>\n<h5>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188 on Pollinator Monitoring<\/h5>\nThis regulation provides a detailed, science-based approach to monitor pollinator populations across EU Member States. It standardizes data collection methods to track the progress of pollinator restoration efforts, focusing on key groups like bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths. The regulation specifies how to select monitoring sites, the observation periods, and precise data collection protocols, including transect walks and light traps. It also mandates the use of expert diagnostics and DNA methods for species identification. Pollinator trends will be assessed using a common pollinator indicator and a pollinator species richness indicator, excluding alien species. The standardized approach ensures comparable and reliable data across the EU, while allowing flexibility to adapt to local conditions.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2177 amending Directive (EU) 2016\/1629 on Inland Waterway Vessels<\/h5>\nThis regulation updates the technical requirements for inland waterway vessels by adopting the latest European Standard, ES-TRIN 2025\/1. The key change mandates that all technical requirements applicable to crafts must adhere to the updated ES-TRIN standard. This new standard introduces rules concerning low flashpoint fuels (methanol), marking of hazardous areas, labelling of fuels, electric propulsion systems, lithium-ion accumulators, use of alternative materials for passenger vessel construction, engine parameter protocols, navigation and information equipment, sewage treatment plants, wheelhouses, sprinkler systems, anchor components and sleeping cabins.<\/p>\n<h5>Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 on Soil Monitoring and Resilience<\/h5>\nKnown as the Soil Monitoring Law, this directive establishes a framework for monitoring soil health across the EU, promoting sustainable management and addressing contamination. The directive requires Member States to monitor soil health and soil sealing\/removal, based on soil descriptors, sampling points, measurements, and remote-sensing data, set criteria for healthy soil condition (sustainable target values and operational trigger values), and adopt a risk-based approach to manage contaminated sites. The most important provision of this directive is that Member States must follow specific methodologies for determining the number and location of sampling points, carrying out soil measurements, and applying quality management system practices in laboratories. Member states should also encourage and support landowners and land managers as regards improving soil health and soil resilience<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2263 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2378 on Automatic Exchange of Information on Crypto-Assets<\/h5>\nThis regulation updates the rules for automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets, yearly assessments, and statistical data. It aligns with Council Directive (EU) 2023\/2226, expanding information exchange to include crypto-assets. The key provisions include updating the computerized format for automatic information exchange and standard forms for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators. Specifically, it details the XML schema for reporting crypto-asset transactions and sets rules for registering and identifying Crypto-Asset Operators.<\/p>\n<h5>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2410 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 on Entry of Poultry into the Union<\/h5>\nThis regulation amends the list of authorized third countries for poultry and related products entering the EU, specifically concerning Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It adjusts authorized zones based on recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), adding and replacing rows in the tables for these countries to reflect updated disease status and control measures. Certain zones in Canada and the UK are re-authorized following stamping-out policies, while entry from newly affected zones is suspended.<\/p>\n<h5>Regulation (EU) 2025\/2365 on Preventing Plastic Pellet Losses<\/h5>\nThis regulation aims to prevent plastic pellet losses into the environment. It establishes obligations for handling plastic pellets across the supply chain, from production to transport. Economic operators and carriers must avoid losses, take action to contain and clean up spills, and notify authorities. Medium-sized and large enterprises must obtain certification for compliance. The regulation also sets requirements for the transport of plastic pellets by sea and mandates the provision of information on the label, packaging, or safety data sheet of plastic pellets. It mandates competent authorities to make certain information publicly available, promoting transparency and accountability. The right to complain, as well as to have access to justice is also guaranteed.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-524\/22: MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG v. European Commission and SRB (Sberbank d.d. Resolution)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed MeSoFa’s action challenging the Single Resolution Board (SRB)’s decision to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Croatia and the Commission’s endorsement of that scheme. The court found no grounds for annulment. The court also emphasizes the importance of the right to be heard in administrative procedures that may adversely affect a person’s interests, while recognizing that this right may be subject to limitations in certain circumstances, such as when necessary to ensure financial stability. Additionally, the court underscores the obligation of EU institutions to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, while acknowledging that the level of detail required may vary depending on the context and the need to protect confidential information.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-608\/24: Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev v. Council (EU Sanctions)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the Council’s decision to maintain Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to his alleged association with actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. The court found that the Council did not err in its assessment that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF, a sanctioned entity, and that the restrictive measures were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights. The court clarifies that the “association” criterion does not require a formal legal or economic link but can be based on common interests. It also reiterates the standard of judicial review for EU sanctions decisions and confirms that asset freezes are a legitimate restriction on the right to property.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-675\/22: Lavrentios Lavrentiadis v. EUIPO – Dalli-Werke (DALL vs. DALLI)<\/h5>\nThe General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO to refuse the registration of the EU trade mark “DALL” for cleaning and cosmetic products due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier trade mark “DALLI”. The court emphasized that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors. It confirmed that goods can be considered identical if the goods covered by the trade mark application are included in a more general category covered by the earlier mark. The court also found that the visual and phonetic aspects of the signs were sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion for the relevant public.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-197\/24: Vers\u00e3ofast v. Autoridade Tribut\u00e1ria e Aduaneira (VAT Exemption for Credit Negotiation)<\/h5>\nThe General Court clarified the scope of the VAT exemption for “negotiation of credit” under Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive. It reaffirmed that the exemption can apply even if the intermediary does not have a contractual link with either party, nor the power to alter the terms of the agreement. The crucial factor is whether the intermediary’s activities, taken as a whole, are aimed at facilitating the conclusion of credit agreements. This clarification is significant for credit intermediaries operating within the EU, as it provides guidance on the VAT treatment of their services.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-277\/23: SBK Art OOO v. Council (EU Sanctions – Ukraine)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed SBK Art OOO’s application for annulment of the Council’s decisions and regulations that maintained the company’s name on the list of entities subject to asset freezing due to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The judgment clarifies the scope and application of the “association criterion” for imposing sanctions and confirms that being associated with a sanctioned entity is a valid basis for sanctions. The court reiterates the standard of judicial review applied to sanctions decisions, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-693\/22: SiLog GmbH v. EUIPO (Trade Mark Dispute)<\/h5>\nThe General Court rejected SiLog GmbH’s challenge to the EUIPO’s decision upholding the invalidity of its EU trade mark “Si Log International” due to the likelihood of confusion with the earlier French word mark “SILOG”. The judgment reinforces the principle that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression conveyed by the marks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant elements. The court also clarified how the provisions relating to the assessment of likelihood of confusion and the admissibility of new facts and evidence should be interpreted and applied.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-18\/25: Staatssecretaris van Financi\u00ebn v. X (Excise Duty on Missing Ethyl Alcohol)<\/h5>\nThe General Court clarified the interpretation of “irregularity” in the context of excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement. It specified that the detection of a missing quantity of goods during the unloading of a means of transport constitutes an irregularity detected “during a movement” of excise goods. This means that the destination country is responsible for the excise duty. This distinction is crucial for businesses involved in cross-border movement of excise goods under duty suspension.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-523\/22: MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG v. SRB and Commission (Sberbank Banka D.D.)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed MeSoFa’s action challenging the SRB and Commission decisions concerning the resolution of Sberbank banka d.d. The judgment confirms the SRB’s authority to take resolution action in respect of failing or likely to fail credit institutions and clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements that the SRB must meet when exercising its resolution powers. It also provides guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of Regulation No 806\/2014.<\/p>\n<h5>Judgment of the General Court in Case T-225\/23: European Federation of Financial Analysts\u2019 Societies v. EUIPO (Trade Mark Dispute)<\/h5>\nThe General Court dismissed the action of the EFFAS challenging EUIPO’s decision to reject the registration of its trade mark, because there was a likelihood of confusion with the earlier trade mark of CFA. The court emphasized the need for a global assessment, considering all relevant factors, including the similarity of the marks and the goods\/services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the perception of the relevant public. The court also highlights the importance of demonstrating peaceful coexistence of the marks on the market to diminish the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<h3>Review of each of legal acts published today:<\/strong><\/h3>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2188\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188 of 19\u00a0September 2025 supplementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02024\/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a science-based method for monitoring pollinator diversity and pollinator populations<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHere’s a breakdown of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188:<\/p>\n**1. Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThis regulation establishes a standardized, science-based method for EU Member States to monitor pollinator diversity and populations. It aims to ensure consistent data collection across the EU to assess the progress of pollinator restoration efforts, as mandated by Regulation (EU) 2024\/1991 on nature restoration. The regulation specifies which pollinator groups to monitor, how to select monitoring sites, and the data collection protocols to be used. The goal is to track pollinator trends and evaluate the effectiveness of measures designed to reverse pollinator decline.<\/p>\n**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n* **Article 1 (Definitions):** Defines key terms used throughout the regulation, such as “bees,” “hoverflies,” “butterflies,” “moths,” “monitoring site,” and “stratified random sampling.” \n* **Article 2 (Target Species):** Specifies that data collection should focus on bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths. \n* **Article 3 (Monitoring Sites):** Sets out the criteria for selecting monitoring sites, including the use of a LUCAS master grid, stratified random sampling by biogeographical region and ecosystem type (agricultural, forest, and other), and minimum distances between sites. It also lists exclusion criteria for sites that are inaccessible or unsuitable for monitoring. \n* **Article 4 (Observation Period):** Requires Member States to define an observation period for data collection, based on pollinator activity, which remains consistent throughout an assessment period. \n* **Article 5 (Data Collection Protocol for Bees, Hoverflies, Butterflies and day-active moths):** Details the methodology for transect walks, including frequency, environmental parameters to record, transect length, speed and observation space. \n* **Article 6 (Data Collection Protocol for night-active moths):** Details the methodology for using light traps, including frequency, environmental parameters to record, placement of traps and light source specifications. \n* **Article 7 (Data Collection Protocol for Rare Pollinator Species):** Focuses on targeted monitoring of critically endangered bee, hoverfly, and butterfly species, allowing Member States to limit the number of monitored species to 15 if necessary. \n* **Article 8 (Species Identification):** Mandates that Member States identify specimens to the species level using expert diagnostics, DNA methods, AI, or other scientifically proven methods. \n* **Article 9 (Assessment of Pollinator Population Trends):** Describes how pollinator abundance and diversity trends will be assessed using the data collected, including the calculation of a common pollinator indicator and a pollinator species richness indicator. Alien species are excluded from the assessment. \n* **Article 10 (Assessment of the Effectiveness of Restoration Measures):** Specifies that the common pollinator indicator should be calculated separately for agricultural, forest, and other ecosystems to assess the impact of restoration efforts. \n* **Article 11 (Entry into Force):** States that the regulation comes into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. \n* **Annex I:** Sets the minimum number of monitoring sites for each Member State. \n* **Annex II:** Details the methodology for calculating the common pollinator indicator, including annual species abundance and diversity indices. \n* **Annex III:** Explains how to calculate the pollinator species richness indicator.<\/p>\n**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n* **Standardized Monitoring Method:** The regulation provides a detailed, standardized method for monitoring pollinators, ensuring that data collected across different Member States is comparable and reliable. \n* **Flexibility for Local Conditions:** While standardized, the regulation allows for some flexibility to adapt the monitoring methods to local environmental conditions and specific pollinator activity periods. \n* **Focus on Key Pollinator Groups:** By focusing on bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths, the regulation targets the most important pollinator groups for which effective monitoring methods are available. \n* **Use of Indicators:** The regulation introduces two key indicators \u2013 the common pollinator indicator and the pollinator species richness indicator \u2013 to assess pollinator population trends and the effectiveness of restoration measures. \n* **Minimum Number of Monitoring Sites:** Annex I specifies the minimum number of monitoring sites required for each Member State, ensuring sufficient data coverage across the EU.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2177\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2177 of 9\u00a0September 2025 amending Directive (EU)\u00a02016\/1629 of the European Parliament and of the Council to update the reference to the most recent European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels (ES-TRIN 2025)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2177 updates the technical requirements for inland waterway vessels by amending Directive (EU) 2016\/1629. The key change involves updating the reference standard to the most recent European Standard laying down Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels, specifically ES-TRIN 2025\/1. This update ensures uniformity in the development of technical requirements for inland waterway vessels within the Union.<\/p>\nThe regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 replaces Annex II of Directive (EU) 2016\/1629, specifying that the technical requirements applicable to crafts are those set out in ES-TRIN standard 2025\/1. Article 2 states that the regulation will come into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and will apply from 1 January 2026. The annex contains the updated text for Annex II of Directive (EU) 2016\/1629, which simply references the ES-TRIN 2025\/1 standard.<\/p>\nThe most important provision is the replacement of Annex II in Directive (EU) 2016\/1629, which now mandates the use of ES-TRIN 2025\/1 for technical requirements applicable to inland waterway vessels. This new standard introduces rules concerning low flashpoint fuels (methanol), marking of hazardous areas, labelling of fuels, electric propulsion systems, lithium-ion accumulators, use of alternative materials for passenger vessel construction, engine parameter protocols, navigation and information equipment, sewage treatment plants, wheelhouses, sprinkler systems, anchor components and sleeping cabins.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025L2360\"><\/p>\n<h3>Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 November 2025 on soil monitoring and resilience (Soil Monitoring Law)<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHere’s a breakdown of the key aspects of the Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 on soil monitoring and resilience, also known as the Soil Monitoring Law.<\/p>\n**1. Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe Directive (EU) 2025\/2360 aims to establish a comprehensive framework for monitoring soil health across the European Union, promoting sustainable soil management, and addressing soil contamination. It seeks to achieve healthy soils by 2050, enabling them to provide essential ecosystem services, mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, and enhance resilience against natural disasters while ensuring food security. The directive focuses on monitoring and assessment, promoting soil resilience, and managing contaminated sites, without imposing mandatory targets for soil health achievement by Member States.<\/p>\n**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe Directive is structured into seven chapters, covering general provisions, monitoring and assessment of soil health, soil resilience, management of contaminated sites, funding and reporting, delegation and committee procedures, and final provisions.<\/p>\n* **Chapter I (General Provisions):** Defines the objectives, scope, and key terms like “soil health,” “soil resilience,” and “soil contamination.” It mandates Member States to establish soil districts and soil units for administrative and monitoring purposes. \n* **Chapter II (Monitoring and Assessment of Soil Health):** Establishes a framework for monitoring soil health and soil sealing\/removal, based on soil descriptors, sampling points, measurements, and remote-sensing data. It tasks the Commission and the EEA with creating a digital soil health data portal. It defines soil descriptors, criteria for healthy soil condition (sustainable target values and operational trigger values), and soil sealing\/removal indicators. \n* **Chapter III (Soil Resilience):** Focuses on supporting soil health and resilience through advice, awareness, research, and financial support to landowners and managers. It outlines land take mitigation principles to minimize the impact of soil sealing and removal. \n* **Chapter IV (Management of Contaminated Sites):** Requires Member States to adopt a risk-based and stepwise approach for identifying, investigating, and managing contaminated sites. It mandates the establishment of a national register of potentially contaminated and contaminated sites. \n* **Chapter V (Funding, Reporting, and Information):** Addresses Union funding mechanisms, reporting obligations for Member States, and public access to soil health information. \n* **Chapter VI (Delegation and Committee Procedure):** Specifies the delegation of power to the Commission for adopting delegated acts and the committee procedures for implementing the Directive. \n* **Chapter VII (Final Provisions):** Covers access to justice, support by the Commission, evaluation and review of the Directive, transposition into national law, and entry into force.<\/p>\n**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n* **Soil Monitoring Framework (Article 6):** Member States must establish a framework for regular and accurate monitoring of soil health and soil sealing\/removal. \n* **Soil Descriptors and Criteria (Article 7 & Annex I):** Member States must apply specific soil descriptors and criteria for assessing soil health, including setting operational trigger values that initiate support for soil health and resilience. \n* **Measurements and Methodologies (Article 9 & Annex II):** Member States must follow specific methodologies for determining the number and location of sampling points, carrying out soil measurements, and applying quality management system practices in laboratories. \n* **Risk-Based Approach for Contaminated Sites (Article 13):** Member States must establish a risk-based approach for identifying, investigating, and managing contaminated sites. \n* **Register of Contaminated Sites (Article 17):** Member States are required to set up and maintain a publicly accessible national register of potentially and actually contaminated sites. \n* **Support for Soil Health and Resilience (Article 11):** Member states should encourage and support landowners and land managers as regards improving soil health and soil resilience and facilitate such improvement by landowners and land managers by, inter alia ensuring easy and equal access to impartial and independent science-based advice and to information, training activities and capacity building for soil managers, landowners, land managers and relevant authorities with regard to practices that improve soil health and soil resilience.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2263\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2263 of 12\u00a0November 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02015\/2378 as regards the standard forms and computerised formats for the mandatory automatic exchange of information on reportable crypto-assets, the communication of the yearly assessment\u00a0and the list of statistical data to be provided by Member States under Council Directive\u00a02011\/16\/EU<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a description of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2263 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2378 regarding the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets, yearly assessments, and statistical data under Council Directive 2011\/16\/EU. The regulation aims to update the standard forms and computerised formats for the mandatory automatic exchange of information on reportable crypto-assets, the communication of the yearly assessment, and the list of statistical data to be provided by Member States. These amendments are necessary to align with the changes introduced by Council Directive (EU) 2023\/2226, which expanded the scope of automatic information exchange to include crypto-assets. The regulation also establishes practical arrangements for the registration and identification of Crypto-Asset Operators that are Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers.<\/p>\nThe regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2378 by adding a new paragraph to Article 2, specifying that the computerised format for the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets must comply with Annex XVIII. It replaces paragraph 2 of Article 2c, requiring Member States to communicate the yearly assessment to the Commission electronically before May 1st each year. A new Article 2g is added, detailing the standard forms for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators, the retention period for deleted information, and rules for changing the Member State of single registration. Annex VIII is replaced, Annex X is amended, and new Annexes XVIII and XIX are added, providing the specific formats and requirements for the exchange of information.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions for practical use are the new Annexes XVIII and XIX, which provide the technical specifications for the computerised format for automatic information exchange and the standard forms for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators. Annex XVIII details the XML schema for reporting crypto-asset transactions, including types of transactions, data elements, and attributes. Annex XIX specifies the form for communicating information on Crypto-Asset Operators, the format of individual identification numbers, retention periods for deleted information, and procedures for changing the Member State of single registration. These annexes are crucial for Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers and Member States to ensure compliance with the updated reporting requirements.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2410\"><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2410 of 24\u00a0November 2025 amending Annexes\u00a0V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU)\u00a02021\/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025\/2410 amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, specifically Annexes V and XIV, concerning the entry of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds into the Union from third countries. The regulation updates the lists of authorized third countries, territories, or zones thereof, focusing on Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, in response to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).<\/p>\nThe regulation is structured into two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex details the specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404, adding and replacing rows in the tables for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States to reflect the updated disease status and implemented control measures.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of this act are the specific amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404. These amendments modify the authorized zones for the entry of poultry and related products into the EU from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, based on the latest HPAI outbreaks. The regulation re-authorizes certain zones in Canada and the United Kingdom following the implementation of stamping-out policies and cleaning\/disinfection, while also suspending entry from newly affected zones in all three countries.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:32025R2365\"><\/p>\n<h3>Regulation (EU) 2025\/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 November 2025 on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nHere is a detailed description of Regulation (EU) 2025\/2365:<\/p>\n**1. Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nRegulation (EU) 2025\/2365 aims to prevent the loss of plastic pellets into the environment, thereby reducing microplastic pollution. It establishes obligations for handling plastic pellets throughout the entire supply chain, from production to transport, to achieve zero pellet loss. The regulation targets economic operators, EU and non-EU carriers, and other parties involved in the handling and transport of plastic pellets. It introduces measures for risk management, containment, clean-up, and compliance verification to minimize environmental harm.<\/p>\n**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe Regulation consists of 26 articles and 5 annexes, covering various aspects of plastic pellet handling and loss prevention.<\/p>\n* **Subject Matter and Scope (Article 1):** Defines the regulation’s objective and specifies the natural and legal persons to whom it applies, including economic operators handling significant quantities of plastic pellets, container cleaning installations, EU and non-EU carriers, and parties involved in maritime transport. \n* **Definitions (Article 2):** Provides definitions for key terms such as “plastic pellets,” “spill,” “loss,” “economic operator,” “EU carrier,” “non-EU carrier,” and “certifier.” \n* **General Obligations (Article 3):** Requires economic operators, EU carriers, and non-EU carriers to avoid losses of plastic pellets and to take immediate action to contain and clean up any losses that occur. It also mandates the notification of installations and transport activities to competent authorities. \n* **Authorised Representatives of Non-EU Carriers (Article 4):** Requires non-EU carriers to designate an authorised representative within the EU to ensure compliance with specific obligations under the regulation. \n* **Obligations Regarding the Handling of Plastic Pellets (Article 5):** Outlines specific actions for economic operators, including establishing a risk management plan, installing equipment, and executing procedures to prevent, contain, and clean up spills and losses. It also sets requirements for EU and non-EU carriers, such as training staff and keeping records of losses. \n* **Certification (Article 6):** Requires medium-sized and large enterprises operating installations handling significant quantities of plastic pellets to obtain certification from accredited certifiers to demonstrate compliance with the regulation. \n* **Compliance through Permits (Article 7):** Allows Member States to exempt economic operators from certain obligations if their operations are subject to permits that ensure compliance with the regulation. \n* **Compliance through Environmental Management Systems (Article 8):** Provides exemptions for economic operators registered with EMAS or implementing other environmental management systems that meet specific criteria. \n* **Accreditation of Certifiers (Article 9):** Sets out requirements for the accreditation of certifiers, ensuring their independence, expertise, and impartiality. \n* **Obligation to Provide Information (Article 10):** Requires manufacturers, importers, downstream users, and distributors placing plastic pellets on the market to provide specific information on the label, packaging, or safety data sheet. \n* **Public Access to Information (Article 11):** Mandates competent authorities to make certain information publicly available, including notifications, risk management plans, self-declarations of conformity, and certificates. \n* **Obligations Regarding the Transport of Plastic Pellets by Sea in Freight Containers (Article 12):** Sets requirements for shippers, operators, and masters of seagoing vessels to ensure the safe packing, stowage, and transport of plastic pellets to minimize hazards to the marine environment. \n* **Verification of Compliance and Reporting (Article 13):** Requires competent authorities to verify compliance with the regulation and Member States to submit reports to the Commission on its implementation. \n* **Incidents and Accidents (Article 14):** Establishes procedures for reporting and managing incidents and accidents that cause losses of plastic pellets affecting human health or the environment. \n* **Non-Compliance (Article 15):** Outlines measures to be taken in the event of an infringement of the regulation, including informing the competent authority, restoring compliance, and complying with complementary measures. \n* **Designation and Powers of Competent Authorities (Article 16):** Requires Member States to designate competent authorities and confer on them the necessary powers of inspection and enforcement. \n* **Information and Assistance Regarding Compliance (Article 17):** Mandates the Commission to develop awareness-raising and training material and Member States to provide access to information and assistance regarding compliance. \n* **Standards (Article 18):** Provides for the development of harmonized standards for estimating quantities of losses. \n* **Complaint-Handling and Access to Justice (Article 19):** Ensures the right of natural or legal persons to submit complaints and have access to justice in cases of non-compliance with the regulation. \n* **Penalties (Article 20):** Requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties for infringements of the regulation, including administrative financial penalties and criminal penalties. \n* **Compensation (Article 21):** Ensures that individuals affected by damage to human health resulting from an infringement of the regulation have the right to claim and obtain compensation. \n* **Amendments to Annexes (Article 22):** Empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend the annexes to the regulation based on technical progress and scientific developments. \n* **Exercise of the Delegation (Article 23):** Sets out the conditions for the exercise of the delegation of power to the Commission. \n* **Committee Procedure (Article 24):** Establishes a committee to assist the Commission in the implementation of the regulation. \n* **Evaluation and Review (Article 25):** Requires the Commission to conduct an evaluation of the implementation of the regulation and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council. \n* **Entry into Force and Application (Article 26):** Specifies the date of entry into force and application of the regulation.<\/p>\n**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n* **Risk Management Plan (Article 5 and Annex I):** Economic operators must establish and maintain a risk management plan for each installation, identifying potential spill and loss locations, estimating quantities of losses, and describing the equipment and procedures in place to prevent, contain, and clean up spills and losses. \n* **Certification (Article 6):** Medium-sized and large enterprises operating installations handling significant quantities of plastic pellets must obtain certification from accredited certifiers to demonstrate compliance with the regulation. \n* **Obligations for Carriers (Article 5 and Annex III):** EU and non-EU carriers must implement specific actions to prevent, contain, and clean up spills and losses during transport, including verifying packaging integrity, communicating safe stowage requirements, and carrying equipment for clean-up. \n* **Public Access to Information (Article 11):** Competent authorities must make information about installations, risk management plans, and certificates publicly available, promoting transparency and accountability. \n* **Complaint-Handling and Access to Justice (Article 19):** Natural or legal persons have the right to submit complaints and have access to justice in cases of non-compliance, ensuring that concerns about plastic pellet losses can be addressed effectively. \n* **Information Requirements (Article 10 and Annex V):** Suppliers of plastic pellets must provide clear and visible information on the label, packaging, or safety data sheet, including a pictogram and a warning statement about the environmental hazards of pellet loss.<\/p>\nThis Regulation introduces a comprehensive framework to prevent plastic pellet losses and reduce microplastic pollution, with specific obligations for economic operators, carriers, and other parties involved in the plastic pellet supply chain.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62022TJ0524\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2025.MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sber Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sberbank Europe AG v European Commission and Single Resolution Board.Economic and monetary union \u2013 Banking union \u2013 Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) \u2013 Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail \u2013 Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank \u2013 Action for annulment \u2013 Interest in bringing proceedings \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 Effective judicial protection \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014.Case T-524\/22.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is the Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of November 26, 2025, in Case T-524\/22, involving MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG (formerly Sberbank Europe AG) against the European Commission and the Single Resolution Board (SRB). The case concerns the adoption of a resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d. (Sberbank Croatia) and the applicant’s challenge to the SRB’s decision and the Commission’s endorsement of that decision. The applicant sought annulment of the SRB’s decision to adopt a resolution scheme for Sberbank Croatia and the Commission’s decision endorsing that scheme, arguing that its rights as a shareholder were infringed. The General Court dismissed the action, finding no grounds for annulment.<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses the admissibility and substance of the applicant’s claims against the SRB’s Decision SRB\/EES\/2022\/21 and the Commission’s Decision (EU) 2022\/948. The court examines whether the SRB exceeded its powers, infringed essential procedural requirements (including the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons), and made errors in its assessment of Sberbank Croatia’s financial situation. The structure of the judgment includes sections on the background of the dispute, the forms of order sought, and the court’s legal analysis of each plea raised by the applicant. The court also considers arguments from interveners such as the Republic of Croatia, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Central Bank (ECB).<\/p>\nThe main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use are those concerning the admissibility of the action, the right to be heard, and the obligation to state reasons. The court clarifies that while a resolution scheme adopted by the SRB is not directly challengeable, the Commission’s endorsement of that scheme is subject to judicial review. The court also emphasizes the importance of the right to be heard in administrative procedures that may adversely affect a person’s interests, while recognizing that this right may be subject to limitations in certain circumstances, such as when necessary to ensure financial stability. Additionally, the court underscores the obligation of EU institutions to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions, while acknowledging that the level of detail required may vary depending on the context and the need to protect confidential information.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0608\"><\/p>\n<h3>Arr\u00eat du Tribunal (premi\u00e8re chambre) du 26 novembre 2025.#Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev contre Conseil de l’Union europ\u00e9enne.#Politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re et de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 commune \u2013 Mesures restrictives prises eu \u00e9gard aux actions compromettant ou mena\u00e7ant l\u2019int\u00e9grit\u00e9 territoriale, la souverainet\u00e9 et l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance de l\u2019Ukraine \u2013 Gel des fonds \u2013 Liste des personnes, des entit\u00e9s et des organismes auxquels s\u2019applique le gel des fonds et des ressources \u00e9conomiques \u2013 Maintien du nom du requ\u00e9rant sur la liste \u2013 Article 2, paragraphe 1, sous g), de la d\u00e9cision 2014\/145\/PESC \u2013 Notion d\u2019\u201cassociation\u201d \u2013 Erreur d\u2019appr\u00e9ciation \u2013 Droit de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 \u2013 Pr\u00e9somption d\u2019innocence \u2013 Proportionnalit\u00e9.#Affaire T-608\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of November 26, 2025, in Case T-608\/24, between Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev and the Council of the European Union. The case concerns restrictive measures (asset freeze) imposed by the EU against individuals and entities undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.<\/p>\n**Essence of the Act:**<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses Musa Yusopovich Bazhaev’s challenge to the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes due to his alleged association with actions undermining Ukraine’s integrity. The General Court dismisses Bazhaev’s application, upholding the Council’s decision to keep him on the sanctions list. The court finds that the Council did not commit an error in assessing that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF, a sanctioned entity, and that the restrictive measures were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows:<\/p>\n* **Introduction:** Identifies the applicant (Bazhaev) and the defendant (Council), and outlines the legal basis of the action (Article 263 TFEU). \n* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the context of EU restrictive measures against those undermining Ukraine’s integrity, including previous decisions and regulations that led to Bazhaev’s initial listing and subsequent renewals. \n* **Facts Subsequent to the Introduction of the Action:** Notes the Council’s decision in March 2025 to renew the restrictive measures against Bazhaev for another six months. \n* **Conclusions of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s request for annulment of the Council’s decisions and the Council’s request for dismissal of the action. \n* **Law:** This section forms the core of the judgment and is divided into the following parts: \n * **First Plea: Error of Assessment:** Addresses Bazhaev’s argument that the Council erred in considering that he met the criteria for sanctions, specifically concerning his being an “influential businessperson operating in Russia” and his “association” with VEB.RF. \n * **Preliminary Considerations:** Sets out the standard of judicial review applicable to EU sanctions decisions. \n * **Application of the Association Criterion:** Examines whether the Council was justified in concluding that Bazhaev was associated with VEB.RF. The court upholds the Council’s assessment, finding that Bazhaev’s connection to VEB.RF through Russian Platinum, a major mining company, demonstrated common interests and justified the sanctions. \n * **Second Plea: Violation of the Principle of Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** Addresses Bazhaev’s argument that the sanctions violated his fundamental rights, including the right to property and the presumption of innocence, and that they were disproportionate. The court rejects these arguments, finding that the sanctions were proportionate and did not violate his fundamental rights. \n * **Request for Adoption of a Measure of Organisation of Procedure:** Rejects the Council’s request for the applicant to produce additional documents. \n * **Costs:** Orders Bazhaev to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions and Changes:**<\/p>\nThe judgment primarily concerns the application of existing EU sanctions legislation to a specific individual. It does not introduce new legislation or amend existing rules. The key provision at issue is Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014\/145\/CFSP, as amended, which allows for sanctions against “influential businesspersons operating in Russia” and those “involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.” The judgment also interprets the concept of “association” as a basis for sanctions.<\/p>\n**Most Important Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\nThe most important aspects of this judgment are:<\/p>\n* **Interpretation of “Association”:** The court clarifies that the “association” criterion does not require a formal legal or economic link but can be based on common interests. \n* **Standard of Judicial Review:** The judgment reiterates the standard of judicial review for EU sanctions decisions, emphasizing the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis. \n* **Proportionality and Fundamental Rights:** The court confirms that asset freezes are a legitimate restriction on the right to property, provided they are proportionate and pursue a legitimate objective. \n* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment confirms that the burden of proof lies with the Council to establish the grounds for sanctions, but it does not need to produce all the information.<\/p>\n: This judgment is relevant to the EU’s sanctions regime concerning actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. It clarifies the scope and application of the sanctions criteria, particularly concerning “association” with sanctioned entities. This has implications for individuals and entities doing business in or with Russia, as they could be subject to sanctions if they are deemed to be associated with individuals or entities involved in actions against Ukraine.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0515\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 November 2025.Lavrentios Lavrentiadis v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Opposition proceedings \u2013 Application for EU word mark DALL \u2013 Earlier EU word mark DALLI \u2013 Relative ground for refusal \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.Case T-515\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled on the likelihood of confusion between two word marks, “DALL” and “DALLI,” both used for goods in Class 3, which includes cleaning and cosmetic products. The court sided with the owner of the earlier trade mark “DALLI,” preventing the registration of “DALL” due to the likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment is as follows: \n1. **Background:** Describes the application for the EU trade mark DALL by Lavrentios Lavrentiadis and the opposition filed by Dalli-Werke GmbH & Co. KG, based on their earlier EU trade mark DALLI. It also outlines the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which both sided with Dalli-Werke, finding a likelihood of confusion. \n2. **Forms of order sought:** Lists the requests made by the applicant (Lavrentiadis), EUIPO, and the intervener (Dalli-Werke) regarding the annulment or dismissal of the contested decision and the allocation of costs. \n3. **Law:** This section contains the legal reasoning of the court. \n * **Admissibility of evidence:** The court first addresses the admissibility of new evidence submitted by the applicant, ultimately ruling it inadmissible because it was not presented during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. \n * **Substance:** The court consolidates the applicant’s pleas into a single plea alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017\/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion. The court then proceeds to analyze the relevant public, the comparison of the goods, and the comparison of the signs. \n * **Relevant public:** The court agrees with the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the relevant public consists of the general public and professionals with an average to higher-than-average level of attention, and that the relevant territory is the European Union. \n * **Comparison of goods:** The court upholds the Board of Appeal’s finding that the goods covered by the marks are either identical or similar, despite the applicant’s arguments about different manufacturing locations and labeling requirements. \n * **Comparison of signs:** The court analyzes the visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity of the marks, finding that they are visually and phonetically similar to an average degree, and that a conceptual comparison is not possible for the non-German-speaking public. \n * **Likelihood of confusion:** Based on the similarity of the goods and signs, the court concludes that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public, and therefore dismisses the action. \n4. **Costs:** The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the intervener, while EUIPO bears its own costs.<\/p>\nThe main provisions of the act: \n* The court emphasizes that the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, considering all relevant factors. \n* It confirms that goods can be considered identical if the goods covered by the trade mark application are included in a more general category covered by the earlier mark. \n* The court states that the visual aspect of the signs is of greater importance for goods intended for mass consumption sold in self-service stores. \n* It reiterates that the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion. \n* The court clarifies that the origin of the goods refers to the manufacturing sector or type of undertaking, not necessarily the geographical origin indicated on the packaging. \n* The court confirms that it is sufficient that a relative ground for refusal exists in part of the European Union.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0657\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) of 26 November 2025.Vers\u00e3ofast, Unipessoal, Lda. v Autoridade Tribut\u00e1ria e Aduaneira.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Common system of VAT \u2013 Article 135(1)(b) of Directive 2006\/112\/EC \u2013 Exemptions for other activities \u2013 Negotiation of credit \u2013 Activities of a credit intermediary \u2013 Classification.Case T-657\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive, which concerns exemptions for certain activities, specifically the negotiation of credit. The case revolves around a Portuguese company, Vers\u00e3ofast, which acts as a credit intermediary, and the question of whether its activities should be exempt from VAT. The court is asked to clarify if the services provided by Vers\u00e3ofast, which include attracting mortgage loan customers, assisting them with documentation, and communicating with credit institutions, qualify as “negotiation of credit” even though Vers\u00e3ofast does not have the power to act on behalf of the banks or influence the credit terms.<\/p>\nThe judgment clarifies the scope of the VAT exemption for “negotiation of credit” under Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive. It reaffirms that exemptions must be interpreted strictly but also as independent concepts of EU law to ensure uniform application across Member States. The court refers to previous case law to define “negotiation” as an activity carried out by an intermediary who is not a party to the contract, but whose actions are essential for the parties to enter into a contract. The judgment emphasizes that the exemption can apply even if the intermediary does not have a contractual link with either party, nor the power to alter the terms of the agreement.<\/p>\nThe key provision of the judgment is its conclusion that the activities of a credit intermediary like Vers\u00e3ofast can be considered “negotiation of credit” and thus exempt from VAT, even if the intermediary lacks the power to bind the credit institution or influence the terms of the credit offers. The crucial factor is whether the intermediary’s activities, taken as a whole, are aimed at facilitating the conclusion of credit agreements. This clarification is significant for credit intermediaries operating within the EU, as it provides guidance on the VAT treatment of their services.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0607\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 November 2025.SBK Art OOO v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy \u2013 Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine \u2013 Freezing of funds \u2013 List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources \u2013 Maintenance of the applicant\u2019s name on the list \u2013 Concept of \u2018association\u2019 \u2013 Article 2(1), in fine, of Decision 2014\/145\/CFSP \u2013 Article 3(1), in fine, of Regulation (EU) No 269\/2014 \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Rights of the defence \u2013 Error of assessment \u2013 Proportionality \u2013 Plea of illegality.Case T-607\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures (sanctions) imposed on SBK Art OOO, a Russian company, in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The court dismisses SBK Art OOO’s application for annulment of the Council’s decisions and regulations that maintained the company’s name on the list of entities subject to asset freezing.<\/p>\n**Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses several pleas raised by SBK Art OOO against the Council’s decision to keep it on the sanctions list. These include:<\/p>\n* **Plea of Illegality:** SBK Art OOO challenges the legality of the criteria used for imposing sanctions, specifically the “association criterion” (being associated with a sanctioned entity) and criteria related to supporting or benefiting from the Russian government. The court rejects the challenge to criteria (f) and (g) as inadmissible and the challenge to the association criterion as unfounded. \n* **Infringement of the Obligation to State Reasons:** SBK Art OOO argues that the Council did not provide sufficient reasons for maintaining its name on the sanctions list. The court rejects this, finding that the Council’s reasoning was adequate. \n* **Breach of the Right to Be Heard:** SBK Art OOO claims it was not given an opportunity to be heard before the sanctions were extended. The court dismisses this, noting that the sanctions were maintained on the same grounds as before, without new evidence. \n* **Error of Assessment:** SBK Art OOO argues that the Council incorrectly assessed the facts, particularly regarding whether Sberbank (a sanctioned entity) still controlled SBK Art OOO after a purported sale. The court finds that the Council provided sufficient evidence to justify its assessment. \n* **Breach of the Principle of Proportionality:** SBK Art OOO contends that the sanctions were disproportionate. The court rejects this, finding that the sanctions were appropriate and necessary to achieve the EU’s objectives.<\/p>\n**Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n* **Association Criterion:** The judgment clarifies the scope and application of the “association criterion” for imposing sanctions. It confirms that being associated with a sanctioned entity is a valid basis for sanctions, even without a direct link to the situation in Ukraine. \n* **Standard of Review:** The judgment reiterates the standard of judicial review applied to sanctions decisions, emphasizing that while the Council has broad discretion, the courts must ensure the factual basis for the decision is sufficiently solid. \n* **Right to Be Heard:** The judgment clarifies that the right to be heard does not require the Council to re-disclose evidence or hold a new hearing when sanctions are maintained on the same grounds as before. \n* **Derogations:** The judgment discusses the application of derogations from the asset freeze, particularly in the context of the sale of SBK Art OOO. It emphasizes that such sales require authorization from competent national authorities.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0572\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2025.SiLog GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Invalidity proceedings \u2013 EU figurative mark Si Log International \u2013 Earlier national word mark SILOG \u2013 Relative ground for invalidity \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001 \u2013 Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal \u2013 Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017\/1001 \u2013 Right to be heard.Case T-572\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by SiLog GmbH against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns an application for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark, specifically the figurative mark “Si Log International,” based on an earlier French word mark “SILOG.” The core issue is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, which is a relative ground for invalidity under EU trade mark law.<\/p>\nThe structure of the judgment addresses several pleas raised by SiLog GmbH, the applicant. These include arguments that EUIPO’s Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, specifically regarding the similarity of services and signs, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the overall assessment of confusion. The applicant also argued that EUIPO wrongly admitted certain evidence submitted late by Silog SAS, the intervener, and that its right to be heard was breached. The General Court systematically addresses and rejects each of these pleas, upholding the Board of Appeal’s decision.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the assessment of likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001) and the admissibility of new facts and evidence before the Board of Appeal (Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017\/1001). The judgment clarifies how these provisions should be interpreted and applied, particularly in cases involving figurative and word marks, and the extent to which EUIPO has discretion in admitting late evidence. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression conveyed by the marks, taking into account their distinctive and dominant elements.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0690\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) of 26 November 2025.Inspecteur van de Douane v FL.Reference for a preliminary ruling \u2013 Taxation \u2013 Excise duties \u2013 Directive 2008\/118\/EC \u2013 Article 10(2) and (4) of Directive 2008\/118 \u2013 Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods \u2013 Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement \u2013 Detection of the irregularity during the movement \u2013 Quantity of missing goods detected when unloading the means of transport.Case T-690\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment from the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) regarding the interpretation of Article 10(2) and (4) of Council Directive 2008\/118\/EC concerning excise duties. The case revolves around a dispute regarding excise duty on a missing quantity of ethyl alcohol detected during the delivery from Belgium to the Netherlands. The core issue is determining in which Member State the excise duty is chargeable when goods are lost during a duty suspension arrangement.<\/p>\nThe judgment clarifies the interpretation of “irregularity” in the context of excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement. It specifies that the detection of a missing quantity of goods during the unloading of a means of transport constitutes an irregularity detected “during a movement” of excise goods. This means that Article 10(2) of Directive 2008\/118 applies, and the excise duty is chargeable in the Member State where the irregularity was detected, which is the State of arrival. The judgment also clarifies that Article 10(4) applies when the irregularity is detected after the movement of goods has ended.<\/p>\nThe most important provision clarified is that the detection of missing excise goods during unloading is considered to be “during the movement,” making the destination country responsible for the excise duty. This distinction is crucial for businesses involved in cross-border movement of excise goods under duty suspension, as it clarifies when and where they are liable to pay excise duties in case of irregularities.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62022TJ0523\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2025.MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sber Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG, anciennement Sberbank Europe AG v European Commission and Single Resolution Board.Economic and monetary union \u2013 Banking union \u2013 Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) \u2013 Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail \u2013 Adoption by the SRB of a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank banka \u2013 Action for annulment \u2013 Interest in bringing proceedings \u2013 Admissibility \u2013 Right to be heard \u2013 Effective judicial protection \u2013 Obligation to state reasons \u2013 Articles 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No 806\/2014.Case T-523\/22.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action for annulment brought by MeSoFa Verm\u00f6gensverwaltungs AG (formerly Sberbank Europe AG) against decisions made by the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and the European Commission concerning the resolution of Sberbank banka d.d. (Sberbank Slovenia). The court dismisses the action, upholding the SRB’s decision to implement a resolution scheme for Sberbank Slovenia and the Commission’s endorsement of that scheme.<\/p>\nThe judgment addresses the admissibility of the action, several pleas raised by the applicant, including allegations that the SRB exceeded its powers, infringed essential procedural requirements (such as the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons), made substantive errors in its analysis of whether Sberbank Slovenia was failing or likely to fail (FOLTF), and failed to choose the least burdensome resolution tool. The court rejects all of these pleas, finding that the SRB’s decisions were lawful and that the applicant’s rights were not violated.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Background:** Describes the context of the dispute, including the applicant’s role as the parent company of Sberbank Slovenia, the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Sberbank Europe and its subsidiaries, and the decisions taken by the ECB and the SRB regarding the resolution of Sberbank Slovenia. \n2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the remedies sought by the applicant and the responses of the defendants and interveners. \n3. **Law:** Contains the court’s legal analysis and reasoning, divided into sections addressing the admissibility of the action and the substance of the applicant’s pleas. \n4. **Admissibility of the action:** Examines whether the applicant has a sufficient interest in bringing the proceedings. \n5. **Substance:** Addresses the nine pleas raised by the applicant, including allegations of procedural and substantive errors in the SRB’s decision-making process. \n6. **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for paying the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the act for its use are: \n* The rejection of the applicant’s claim that the SRB exceeded its powers by adopting a resolution scheme for Sberbank Slovenia without also resolving its parent company, Sberbank Europe. \n* The finding that the SRB did not infringe the applicant’s right to be heard, as the urgency of the situation justified limiting that right. \n* The conclusion that the SRB adequately stated the reasons for its decision and did not commit any manifest errors of assessment in determining that Sberbank Slovenia was FOLTF and that resolution was necessary in the public interest. \n* The rejection of the applicant’s argument that the SRB failed to choose the least burdensome resolution tool, as the sale-of-business tool was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. \n* The finding that the SRB complied with the procedural and substantive rules relating to the sale-of-business tool and the valuation of Sberbank Slovenia’s assets and liabilities. \n* The rejection of the applicant’s claim that the SRB infringed the principle of proportionality or failed to consider alternative solutions. \n* The conclusion that the SRB adequately justified its decision to depart from the resolution plan, as the circumstances had changed since the plan was adopted.<\/p>\nThis judgment confirms the SRB’s authority to take resolution action in respect of failing or likely to fail credit institutions and clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements that the SRB must meet when exercising its resolution powers. It also provides guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of Regulation No 806\/2014, such as the conditions for resolution, the right to be heard, and the obligation to state reasons.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/AUTO\/?uri=CELEX:62024TJ0632\"><\/p>\n<h3>Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2025.European Federation of Financial Analysts’Societies (EFFAS) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark \u2013 Opposition proceedings \u2013 Application for EU figurative mark CEFA EFFAS Certified European Financial Analyst \u2013 Earlier EU word mark CFA \u2013 Relative ground for refusal \u2013 Likelihood of confusion \u2013 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001 \u2013 Absence of peaceful coexistence.Case T-632\/24.<\/strong><\/h3>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute between the European Federation of Financial Analysts\u2019 Societies (EFFAS) and the CFA Institute. The case concerns an application by EFFAS to register a figurative EU trade mark, which was opposed by CFA Institute based on its earlier EU word mark “CFA”. The court ultimately ruled in favor of CFA Institute, dismissing EFFAS’s action.<\/p>\nThe judgment is structured as follows: \n1. **Background:** Describes the application for the EU trade mark by EFFAS, the opposition filed by CFA Institute based on its earlier trade mark, and the decisions of the EUIPO Opposition Division and Board of Appeal. \n2. **Forms of order sought:** Outlines the requests made by EFFAS, EUIPO, and CFA Institute regarding the annulment of the contested decision and the allocation of costs. \n3. **Law:** Details the legal reasoning of the General Court, including: \n * The subject matter of the action, clarifying that EFFAS seeks annulment of the decision only in part. \n * The single plea in law raised by EFFAS, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017\/1001, divided into two complaints: peaceful coexistence and similarity of the signs. \n * Admissibility of evidence, ruling certain evidence submitted for the first time before the Court as inadmissible. \n * Assessment of the peaceful coexistence of the signs, finding that EFFAS did not sufficiently demonstrate peaceful coexistence during the proceedings before EUIPO. \n * Assessment of the likelihood of confusion, including analysis of the relevant territory, public, level of attention, comparison of goods\/services, comparison of the signs (visual, phonetic, conceptual), and an overall assessment. \n4. **Costs:** Determines that EFFAS, as the unsuccessful party, must pay the costs incurred by CFA Institute, while EUIPO bears its own costs.<\/p>\nThe most important provisions of the judgment are those concerning the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The court emphasizes the need for a global assessment, considering all relevant factors, including the similarity of the marks and the goods\/services, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and the perception of the relevant public. The court also highlights the importance of demonstrating peaceful coexistence of the marks on the market to diminish the likelihood of confusion. In this specific case, the court found that the similarities between the marks, combined with the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark and the failure to prove peaceful coexistence, created a likelihood of confusion, justifying the refusal to register EFFAS’s trade mark.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"EU Legislation Analysis Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025\/2188 on Pollinator Monitoring This regulation provides a detailed, science-based approach to monitor pollinator populations across EU Member States. It standardizes data collection methods to track the progress of pollinator restoration efforts, focusing on key groups like bees, hoverflies, butterflies, and moths. The regulation specifies how to select…<\/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-13530","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\/13530","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=13530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}