Europe – European Commission – public consultation – from 15 December 2025 to 26 January 2026 – revision of the rules for calculating greenhouse gas emission reductions applicable to bioenergy (amendment of the values applicable to production pathways for biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels, and amendment of the methodology – RED II Directive)

Europe – European Commission – public consultation – from 15 December 2025 to 26 January 2026 – revision of the rules for calculating greenhouse gas emission reductions applicable to bioenergy (amendment of the values applicable to production pathways for biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels, and amendment of the methodology – RED II Directive)

par | 6 janvier 2026 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats The European Commission is reviewing, pursuant to Article 31(5) of the Renewable Energy Directive, Annexes V and VI of that Directive. On this occasion, it may, where justified, add or amend the values...
Europe – Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 – entry into force on 1 January 2026 of the financial part of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

Europe – Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 – entry into force on 1 January 2026 of the financial part of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

par | 26 décembre 2025 | *Europe

Europe – Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023  » establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism »(OJEU 16 May 2023)– entry into force on 1 January 2026 of the financial part of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism...
Europe – The European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment of 4 December 2025 (No. 9953/16 – Kosmatska v. Ukraine), found Ukraine responsible for ensuring the full restitution of the applicant’s property title over a plot of land, or providing her with financial compensation or equivalent property, when the land had been purchased in good faith from individuals who had acquired it fraudulently to the detriment of the Ukrainian State. The Court held that, although the public-interest objective invoked (restoration of land lawfulness) may be legitimate, the measure applied to the applicant was disproportionate due to her good faith and the State’s failure in maintaining land registers, as this dispossession imposed an excessive individual burden on the bona fide citizen

Europe – The European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment of 4 December 2025 (No. 9953/16 – Kosmatska v. Ukraine), found Ukraine responsible for ensuring the full restitution of the applicant’s property title over a plot of land, or providing her with financial compensation or equivalent property, when the land had been purchased in good faith from individuals who had acquired it fraudulently to the detriment of the Ukrainian State. The Court held that, although the public-interest objective invoked (restoration of land lawfulness) may be legitimate, the measure applied to the applicant was disproportionate due to her good faith and the State’s failure in maintaining land registers, as this dispossession imposed an excessive individual burden on the bona fide citizen

par | 4 décembre 2025 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats Europe – The European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment of 4 December 2025 (No. 9953/16 – Kosmatska v. Ukraine), found Ukraine responsible for ensuring the full restitution of the applicant’s property title...
Europe – In a judgment dated November 18, 2025 (Application no. 53002/21), the European Court of Human Rights held that the demolition of a fence erected in 1964 by a company that had occupied the land prior to that date, and the eviction of the company without prior notice or access to procedural safeguards, constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (absolute nature of the right to property).

Europe – In a judgment dated November 18, 2025 (Application no. 53002/21), the European Court of Human Rights held that the demolition of a fence erected in 1964 by a company that had occupied the land prior to that date, and the eviction of the company without prior notice or access to procedural safeguards, constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (absolute nature of the right to property).

par | 24 novembre 2025 | *Europe

HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats In a judgment dated November 18, 2025 (Application no. 53002/21), the European Court of Human Rights held that the demolition of a fence erected in 1964 by a company that had occupied the land prior to that...
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Résumé de la politique de confidentialité

Ce site utilise des cookies afin que nous puissions vous fournir la meilleure expérience utilisateur possible. Les informations sur les cookies sont stockées dans votre navigateur et remplissent des fonctions telles que vous reconnaître lorsque vous revenez sur notre site Web et aider notre équipe à comprendre les sections du site que vous trouvez les plus intéressantes et utiles.