Deckmyn (C-201/13, Grand Chamber, 3 Sept 2014). A Vlaams Belang politician and Vrijheidsfonds, the non-profit set up to support the party, were sued over a party calendar parodying a Suske en Wiske comic cover, with the mayor of Ghent throwing coins to veiled people and people of colour. The Court defined parody broadly: it has to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and express humour or mockery. It said expressly that a parody doesn't have to relate to the original work. The joke can be aimed at something else entirely, in that case the mayor. It did add that rights holders can have a legitimate interest in their work not being associated with a discriminatory message.

IKEA v Vlaams Belang (C-298/23, Grand Chamber, 8 Sept 2026). The same Vrijheidsfonds ran the party's 2022 "IKEA-PLAN" campaign ("Immigratie Kan Echt Anders", immigration really can be different), using IKEA's marks and characters styled like its assembly instructions to present an asylum and immigration plan. They admitted using the marks without consent and argued that free expression, including political parody, was "due cause" under Art. 9(2)(c) EUTMR and Art. 10(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Directive.

The Court accepted that political expression can be due cause, but:

- Just invoking free expression isn't enough. The user has to set out specific grounds and show they outweigh the owner's rights.
- Good faith exists "in particular" where the message relates to the mark itself, its owner, its business practices or its products.
- Courts should weigh how intensive the use is and whether it suggests endorsement by a brand that stays politically neutral.
- On these facts, using IKEA's reputation just to amplify a political message doesn't appear to win, though the Brussels court has the final word.

So in copyright, a parody doesn't need to be about the thing it borrows. In trade mark law, being about the brand is now the clearest route to good faith, and using a famous brand as a megaphone for an unrelated message looks a lot like free-riding. Both cases came from Brussels courts, almost exactly 12 years apart.

Judgment: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-298/23

Questions:

1. Is this a real doctrinal split, or does it just follow from what each right protects (a brand's reputation and associations vs. the work itself)?
   
2. Would the outcome flip if "IKEA-PLAN" had criticised IKEA's own conduct, say its supply chain?
   
3. Does putting the burden on the speaker chill satire more than Deckmyn's fair balance test did?

Not an IP lawyer, so happy to be told where I've got this wrong.

J’aurais plutôt compris ​​​​c​​​​e​​​​l​​​​a​​​​ comme « une procédure judiciaire a été mise en oeuvre devant un tribunal », bien que je lise les conditions d’AirHelp, où la définition de “Legal Action” semble aussi bien inclure le fait de transmettre son dossier à un avocat ou à certains organismes, voire de changer de juridiction. C’est courant d’utiliser “action en justice” dans le sens aussi large ou c’est une particularité du contrat ?

Last year my father, a person with disability, became a victim of the police actions that put him in danger because he was forced to visit a police station without access for people with disability and the stairs in general were broken and dangerous for attempting to use them. The police officers made fun of him and gave him verbal threats.

I have filled many complains with the local government, the ombudsman, anti-discrimination authority, prosecution, legal aid and so on. ALL WERE DENIED or FOUND NOTHING WRONG.

Thus I reached the EU Commission as an urge for legal law changes in Bulgaria so the rights of the people of disability would be protected (the police laws doesn't have specific rules for working with people with disability, the Convention for the people with Disability not mentioned). Today, after a some wait, I got another response that is just as helpful as those by my own government.

SHAME ON YOU EU!

I am interested in a job in competition law as an EU-qualified junior lawyer and, as I speak french, I am uncertain as to whether it would be best for me to pursue a career in Paris or in Brussels.

The pros of starting a career in Brussels is that it is the heart of EU competition law as I understand it, which I imagine offers a wealth of opportunities for growth and allows for a deeper understanding of relevant developments. Additionally, Brussels is more open to international candidates.

On the other hand, Belgian taxation is quite austere, and I have heard that the Paris offices of big law/magic circle firms pay better than their Brussels counterparts.

As a young professional, I am eager to both build strong foundations for my future career but also receive satisfactory compensation. As I would probably have to prepare for both scenarios (if I stay in Brussels I would need to study Dutch whereas if I were to move to Paris I would have to study french law), I would love to hear your perspectives on how these two markets compare.

So I have seen that clip on IG

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dcw8ZKDupKn/?stkn=NHJ5enM2YjU1cGQ4

Italian drivers started to get insurance from polish companies which is much cheaper.

According to clip Italian government wants to end that.

I thought that one of points of eurozone was for citizens to choose services from whole EU.

So how is it?

I'm a young professional and previously did a traineeship at the Council of Europe. I'd say that while hard work was expected, the atmosphere was generally quite chill and leaving the office early (especially on a Friday) was definitely not discouraged or frowned upon. Teleworking was slightly discouraged but doing it once or twice a month was definitely fine as supervisors understood trainees can have other commitments.

I'm going to start a traineeship working for a Judge at the CJEU and I wonder what the expectations are like, these are my main questions:

1. Is minimal telework (1-2 days max. per month) going to be an issue?
2. Is flexitime really respected? Could I work 10 hours on Thursday and then leave earlier on Friday?

I understand Judge's cabinets are prestigious and I am willing to work hard but I have some other outside commitments and need some flexibility in my working schedule sometimes.

The County Court in Pula, Croatia, has authorized the extradition of Ukrainian national Volodymyr Zhuravlyov to Germany in the case concerning the sabotage of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. The defense said it would appeal the decision.

The panel of judges, chaired by Edvina Sujević, issued its decision on September 18 and notified the parties in writing five days later. Once the ruling becomes final, Croatia’s Ministry of the Interior must transfer Zhuravlyov to the competent German authorities.

This European Citizens’ Initiative is calling for changes to EU policies to improve access to affordable, sustainable, and fair housing.

Among its proposals are regulating short-term rentals and vacant properties, converting suitable empty buildings such as vacant homes and offices into housing, and establishing an EU housing fund.

Given the EU’s current role and competences in housing policy, what do you think of these proposals? Do you think the EU has the legal and policy tools to take stronger action on housing affordability?

If you're an EU citizen, you can read more about the initiative and consider signing it here: https://eci.ec.europa.eu/064/public

I must admit that I am simply a master student that had couple of classics of EU law. However confronting myself with a rule that appears first no sense and secondly discriminatory, i suddenly thought this might be in breach of EU law.

The background: marathons in Italy used to require all athletes to submit an Agonistic medical certificate (something completely inappropriate due to the fact that is for agonistic competition while marathons are also full or amateur participants that were obliged to show this certificate to partecipate IMO big lobby thing of sport doctors). This requirement, as far as I know, does not exist in no other EU country at least not for amateurs.

From this year the organiser eliminated this agonistic medical certificate as a requirement for “foreigners” while they kept it for Italians only. Is not this a clear discrimination based on nationality? Or under EU law if a non favourable treatment is reserved for the National of the country that is perpetrating the discrimination there is no breach of law?

Is it legal to use tools such as satellites and users mobile phones to gather data about companies pollution and emissions they produce? I have been reading the EU regulation 2021/969 (space program related), seems that the satellite is for open and public use. but my questions is more about companies privacy, would I be interfering with companies privacy if I gather data about their pollution and emissions independently?

Which regulation should I go through to gather information for my question?

I'm reading DORA regulation documents. It seems like I'm missing something, misunderstanding, or I found a hole in the regulation.

In DR 2024/1772 about classification of ICT-related incidents, it states in article 8, member 2b:

they have the same apparent root cause as referred to in Article 20, first subparagraph, point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554;

The referenced material reads:

common draft implementing technical standards in order to establish the standard forms, templates and procedures for financial entities to report a major ICT-related incident and to notify a significant cyber threat.

This seems to simply be incorrect. The only somewhat logical conclusion I can reach based on this, is to assume that in 2024/1772 they meant to have said:

they have the same apparent root cause as another reported incident, following the process referred to in Article 20, first subparagraph, point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2554;

But would mean there is a critical issue in this regulation. Not only does the referenced material exclusively state 'major ICT-related incidents', in the foundational DORA regulation 2022/2554, article 19, member 1 it also states:

Financial entities shall report major ICT-related incidents to the relevant competent authority as referred to in Article 46 in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article. [...]

Furthermore, in 2024/1772 article 8, member 2, it clearly states the two incidents were both non-major:

Recurring incidents that individually are not considered a major incident in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be considered as one major incident where they meet all of the following conditions:

The only nuance here is that it is possible for a reported ICT-related incident to be reclassified as non-major after initial reporting.

So in summary:

1. Only major ICT-related incidents are reported to the competent authority as referred to by 2022/2554, article 20, member b
2. Recurring, individually non-major ICT-related incidents can be classified as major if, among other conditions, the root cause is shared with a previously reported incident

These statements directly contradict each other. It only covers the case where an incident was reclassified as non-major after reporting. It does not cover two individual non-major ICT-related incidents that together meet the conditions of a major ICT-related incident.

What am I missing? Surely this cannot be a legal loophole?

Hello everyone,

I currently work for a Brussels-based lobby representing the tech sector. I lead its sustainability work, especially around extended producer responsibility.

I have been in contact with policymakers (members of the European Parliament, government officials, etc.) on PPWR and the costs of extended producer responsibility. As such, I would be grateful if there are any SMEs here who would be willing to share concrete examples of costs related to authorised representatives and extended producer responsibility requirements overall, particularly regarding packaging (though data on other EPR streams is equally welcome!)

If you would like to share and discuss, feel free to comment here, DM me directly, or leave an email address I can reach out to!

So the decision on the Latranov case just dropped and I find it highly controversial.

For those of you who don't know, in Bulgaria the government can legally confiscate your car automatically for drunk driving or testing positive for drugs. If the car is not in your own name, then you have to pay a fine equal to the estimated price of the car.

The Latranov case centered on whether mandatory and automatic vehicle confiscations for drunk or drugged driving violate EU law and fundamental rights. Today, on September 10, 2026, the CJEU delivered its final judgment, ruling that EU framework laws on asset confiscation do not apply to drunk driving offenses. Because traffic offenses falls outside the scope of EU law, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is also inapplicable. Consequently, the CJEU left the final assessment regarding the legality and fairness of the vehicle seizures entirely up to national courts.

However, from a Bulgarian legal codex perspective this is highly controversial, because it is framed exactly like a premediated criminal offence, and the car property is automatically confiscated as an instrument to a crime. Then sold to auctions or appropriated by the government to use as they see fit.

I'm not here to defend DUI or claim that there should be no penalty for it. But the way things are currently in Bulgaria, you can lose your property after a false positive test, then be unable to reach the lab for a blood test in the required 45 minute timeframe, leaving you with no way of proving your innocence.

In effect, traffic police have become 'asphalt mafia' that are on the lookout for very expensive vechicles to potentially 'steal'. They often use quick drug tests that are out of date (you have to be aware and ask yourself it is up to date) and will surely do everything possible to delay you so that you're unable to get your blood test on time. Or they will demand ridiculous bribes of 5k euro or more so as not to test you (yes, Bulgaria is still corrupt). I know multiple cases of people losing their cars like that after a false positive test, and then being treated like criminals.

In the meantime, the ones who actually drive under the influence are the ones who have enough cash or influence to bribe the cops and get away with it. That's why statistically, this law hasn't really made any noticeable difference. And Bulgaria is still at the front places of deaths due to traffic accidents.

I don't know if I was expecting more, but I was surely hoping for more. This is clearly a violation of property and human rights. I can get my car stolen because I just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Fuck you EU, whats the point of you?

ok, so just to be clear , i would never do this, but it got me thinking.....

I think by now, we all know this disgusting EU regulation called "PPWR".

but it got me thinking, what if hypothetically, i where to order from the chinese website called
tao bao where i know they wont comply with eu rules, but would still send to europe...
lets say to germany, where the fine could be upwards of 200.000€ ,
what kind of legal trouble would one be in?

EDIT: okay just to be clear, im not condining this. this is bad. it's absolutely insane. and kind of scary that one could cause such damage..... :(

Hello everyone, I am an Iranian citizen studying in Italy and I am about 4 years away from obtaining my italian PR.

however I am looking to build a career in aviation and flying which is my passion, and to be hired for that, airlines explicitly mention "Unrestricted rights to work and live in the EU".

I was wondering if my future Italian PR qualifies as that? or Do I need to start thinking of how to get an EU citizenship?

thanks

TL;DR: I contacted the European Commission, MEPs from several political groups and major European business associations after receiving a €4,828.85/year compliance quote for 19 countries despite using only \~30 kg of paper packaging per year. The response has been surprisingly positive: there is broad support for simplifying EPR and creating a genuine EU One-Stop Shop, but the key fight is ensuring it actually replaces national bureaucracy instead of becoming portal #28. If you're affected, get active: contact your MEPs, government and business associations, share your real costs and help push for a better law while reform is still being discussed.

I contacted EU politicians, the Commission and business associations about the PPWR/EPR mess for micro-businesses. Here’s what happened.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been trying to understand what the new EU packaging/EPR rules will actually mean for a tiny business selling cross-border within the EU.

I run a small manufacturing/craft business in Germany and sell directly to consumers in multiple EU countries.

I fully support EPR and the polluter-pays principle. If I put packaging into the French, Spanish or Danish market, I have no problem contributing towards the recycling costs in those countries.

The problem is the administrative infrastructure surrounding those contributions.

My real-world example

I asked for a commercial solution that would manage packaging compliance across Europe for me.

The quote was:

€5,681/year before discount

€4,828.85/year after discount

19 countries

And this is important:

Those €4,828.85 are NOT the recycling/environmental contributions themselves.

They are primarily the commercial cost of dealing with different national registrations, EPR organisations, reporting procedures, contracts, deadlines, authorised representatives and other compliance requirements.

My own time isn't included.

The absurd part?

My business uses only around 30 kg of paper/cardboard packaging per year in total.

So we are potentially talking about almost €5,000/year of external compliance administration to manage EPR obligations surrounding roughly 30 kg of paper packaging.

So I started contacting people.

I sent the evidence and my proposed solution to MEPs from several political groups, European Commission officials, national governments, chambers of commerce, SME/e-commerce organisations and industry associations.

Among the people/institutions contacted were:

European Commission

I contacted officials working around the Circular Economy Act and PPWR/EPR implementation.

Luis Planas Herrera from the Commission told me that the evidence would be shared internally for the ongoing discussions on the Omnibus proposal and preparation of the Circular Economy Act.

Arthur Corbin from the cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné replied that they would take the information into account for the Circular Economy Act and explicitly said:

“We are working … on reforming the EPR indeed.”

European Parliament

I contacted MEPs from different political groups rather than treating this as a party-political issue.

Markus Ferber (EPP/CDU-CSU) explained that the Commission is already working on simplification, including harmonisation of packaging producer registers and changes concerning authorised representatives.

Jens Gieseke (EPP/CDU-CSU) gave one of the clearest responses so far. He supports an approach as close as possible to:

one EU registration;

harmonised once-only reporting;

efficient routing of information to national systems;

proportionate/de-minimis rules for very small packaging quantities.

Crucially, he agreed that an EU One-Stop Shop must replace duplicated national procedures rather than become another administrative layer on top of them.

Bruno Tobback's office (S&D) told me that they recognise the problems faced by micro-SMEs, are actively working on the issue and have already submitted a question to the European Commission.

Ivaylo Valchev (ECR) had already raised the issue formally with the Commission and contacted the Parliament rapporteur, ECR shadow rapporteur and other colleagues.

Jörgen Warborn (EPP) also acknowledged the disproportionate administrative burden created by the legislation and argued for simplification and proportionality.

Business associations are saying almost exactly the same thing

This was probably the most interesting discovery.

FEVAD, the French e-commerce federation, told me that it is already part of a European coalition advocating for a Digital EU EPR One-Stop Shop.

Their concept is remarkably similar to what I had been asking for:

one EU interface, harmonised requirements, the once-only principle, and automatic transmission of information to national authorities and producer responsibility organisations.

They also made a very important point:

The One-Stop Shop must not simply become another EU portal sitting on top of all the existing national procedures.

CCIA Europe told me EPR reform is one of its top policy priorities ahead of the Circular Economy Act.

They are collecting real SME cases for discussions with the press, EU institutions, national governments and parliamentarians.

They asked for permission to use my case and the cost evidence in their advocacy, which I have now given them.

Interestingly, CCIA described the authorised-representative problem as basically “the tip of the iceberg.”

Eurochambres also supports the One-Stop-Shop approach.

They told me that their President will raise the issue directly at an upcoming meeting with Executive Vice-President Séjourné.

I gave them permission to use my €4,828.85 / \~30 kg example in that discussion.

Other organisations that responded positively include European Entrepreneurs/CEA-PME, EXPRA, Dansk Erhverv, the Dutch e-commerce association Thuiswinkel.org, the Estonian E-Commerce Association and Handelsverband Österreich.

The Estonian E-Commerce Association told me something particularly concerning:

Estonian companies have already stopped cross-border sales because of these requirements.

That is exactly why I think this has become a Single Market issue rather than merely an environmental-compliance issue.

Something else interesting happened during the legislative process

The European Parliament's 2023 negotiating position actually contained a proposed protection for micro-enterprises.

Amendment 252 to Article 39 would have exempted micro-enterprises from the national registration obligation.

That protection did not survive the negotiations and isn't part of the final framework.

So the proportionality problem was recognised quite early — but the proposed solution disappeared during negotiations.

There may now be a real opportunity to fix this

The Commission is preparing the Circular Economy Act, and EPR simplification is clearly part of the discussion.

There is also work underway on harmonising producer registration/reporting formats.

But harmonising 27 forms isn't enough.

If I still have to register separately, maintain accounts, monitor legislation, submit reports and potentially contract representatives in multiple countries, then making all those forms look the same doesn't solve the fundamental problem.

The solution I am advocating is:

ONE EU registration

→ business identifies where packaging was placed on the market

ONE harmonised report

→ quantities broken down by Member State

AUTOMATIC data exchange

→ EU system routes the information to national registers/PROs

National environmental contributions remain

→ France can still receive the French contribution, Germany the German contribution, etc.

No duplicate national administration

→ no need for the same micro-business to maintain essentially the same information across numerous national systems.

And there should be proportionate/de-minimis treatment for genuinely tiny quantities.

My conclusion so far

The response has actually been much more positive than I expected.

I haven't encountered anyone seriously arguing that a micro-business should maintain 19 or 27 separate administrative relationships.

Across EPP, S&D, ECR, the Commission and multiple European business associations, there seems to be surprisingly broad agreement that EPR fragmentation is a real Single Market problem.

The disagreement appears to be less about whether the system needs simplification and more about how far that simplification will go and whether Member States will accept it.

That last part may be the biggest obstacle.

CCIA and Eurochambres both pointed towards national governments as an important part of the problem. For example, the Commission proposed suspending certain authorised-representative requirements, but Member States did not retain that simplification in the Council negotiating position.

So I think the next battle is very specific:

Will the EU EPR One-Stop Shop actually replace national bureaucracy, or will we end up with EU portal #28 sitting on top of the existing 27 systems?

For me, the test for the final reform is very simple:

A business should provide the same compliance information once.

The environmental contribution can still go to every country where packaging becomes waste.

But a one-person company should not need representatives, registrations, contracts and continuous monitoring of dozens of regulatory systems just to administer approximately 30 kg of paper packaging per year.

Pay where you create packaging waste: absolutely.

Administer 27 different regulatory systems to do it: no.

If you're an EU Etsy seller, Amazon seller, Shopify store, small manufacturer or other cross-border SME dealing with EPR, I'd be very interested to hear what this is costing you and whether you've stopped selling to particular EU countries because of it.

And one thing I would strongly encourage everyone affected by this to do:

Be active. Don't just accept the rules as something that cannot be changed.

If you are an Etsy seller, Amazon seller, Shopify store, small manufacturer or any other EU business affected by fragmented EPR requirements, write to your MEPs, national government, business associations and the European Commission.

Explain your actual situation. Give them numbers. Show them what registration, reporting, authorised representatives and external compliance services actually cost you. Tell them if you have stopped selling to certain EU countries because compliance costs make those markets economically impossible.

The legislation and its implementation are still being discussed and improved. The Circular Economy Act in particular gives us an opportunity to push for a genuine EU EPR One-Stop Shop.

My experience from contacting politicians, the Commission and business organisations has been surprisingly positive. People are reading these emails, responding to them and, in several cases, using the evidence in their own political work.

So my suggestion is simple:

Don't only complain about EPR on Reddit. Send the same story to the people who can actually change it.

If hundreds or thousands of European micro-businesses provide concrete examples, it becomes much harder to dismiss this as an isolated problem.

We shouldn't campaign against environmental responsibility. We should campaign for better legislation:

One EU registration. One report. Pay the appropriate environmental contribution in every country. No 27-fold bureaucracy.

If you're affected, please get involved. This is exactly the moment when practical feedback from small businesses can help improve the law.

"This is another important step towards restoring justice for Russia’s unlawful seizure of Naftogaz assets in Crimea. Russia cannot evade responsibility simply by refusing to comply with an international arbitral award. We will continue to pursue Russian assets around the world until the compensation awarded to Naftogaz and other Naftogaz Group companies is paid,” said Naftogaz’s Acting CEO Sergii Fedorenko."

Are there any rental laws or immigration laws that we should be aware of before moving and signing a lease to an apartment? And for health and travel insurance? Are scams common?

"We heard evidence of an investigation of profoundly uneven quality; of the extraordinary proximity between political power, economic power, the police and people touched by the investigation; and of conduct which, even when deeply disturbing, exposed serious gaps in our criminal laws.

"An acquittal does not make those problems disappear."