EU 19th package : a severe reinforcement of the sanctions

On 23 October 2025, the EU adopted its 19th package of sanctions against Russia and Belarus which deepens the existing framework and extends its enforcement beyond the Union’s borders, targeting third-country operators, crypto platforms, and service providers facilitating Russia’s war economy.

Announced by President von der Leyen in Copenhagen in September 2025, this new package confirms a shift towards a more extraterritorial application of EU restrictive measures, bringing under the scope of enforcement non-EU actors contributing, directly or indirectly, to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

With 69 new listings, 117 additional vessels, and expanded enforcement powers over third-country networks, the 19th package represents one of the EU’s most comprehensive sanctions updates to date .

Key regulations include: Regulation (EU) 2025/2037, Regulation (EU) 2025/2033 and Implementing regulation (EU) 2025/2035.

For more information, please contact:

Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

Cédric Alter – Partner – c.alter@janson.be

The Draft FSR Guidelines : What they mean for businesses operating in the EU?

On 18 July 2025, the EU Commission published the draft guidelines on the application of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”). The draft is open for public consultation until 12 September 2025, and stakeholders are invited to submit feedback via the EU Commission’s website (see Consultation on FSR Guidelines - European Commission).

The guidelines aim to clarify how the Commission intends to apply key provisions of the FSR, as there is currently little case practice to illustrate its enforcement. The EU Commission has indicated that the guidelines will be updated regularly to reflect future developments and emerging case law.

While providing an analytical framework, the Commission emphasises that they “do not constitute a ‘checklist’, to be applied mechanically”. Instead, the FSR guidelines outline how the EU Commission will exercise its discretion across three central areas:

1. Determining the existence of a distortion caused by a foreign subsidy (Section 2);

2. Applying the balancing test to weigh negative and positive effects of a foreign subsidy (Section 3);

3. Exercising its power to request the prior notification of concentrations and foreign financial contributions in public procurement procedures (Section 4).

 These areas have been among the most debated by stakeholders since the adoption of the FSR, with concerns raised about the scope and predictability of enforcement.

1. Distortion of competition by a foreign subsidy

We recall that two cumulative conditions for a foreign subsidy to be considered distortive:

1. The subsidy must be liable to improve the competitive position of the beneficiary in the internal market; and

2. It must actually or potentially have a negative effect on competition in the internal market as a result.

The FSR guidelines confirm that the Commission will interpret “distortion” broadly, covering not only subsidies used directly within the internal market but also those that indirectly strengthen an undertaking’s EU activities (for example, subsidies granted abroad that free up capital for operations in the EU).

a.     Is the subsidy liable to improve the undertaking’s competitive position?

The EU Commission identifies four categories of foreign subsidies in its assessment:

• Direct subsidies used in the internal market : the clearest case where the distortion condition is typically presumed;

• Subsidies directed towards EU activities : the EU Commission examines the purpose, scope, and conditions of the subsidy (e.g., subsidies linked to manufacturing in the EU, technology licensing to EU licensees, or subsidies conditioned on EU investments or acquisitions, including indirect contributions);

• General or indirect subsidies : the EU Commission examines the likelihood of cross-subsidisation and expects companies to provide credible evidence of safeguards (e.g., legal or contractual obligations, distinct shareholding structures, binding sectoral rules);

• Non-insignificant benefits : the benefit must exceed the de minimis thresholds set out in Article 4(2) and (3) of the FSR. The Commission considers the company’s EU footprint, sector dynamics, and value chain impact when assessing this.

b.     Does the subsidy actually or potentially negatively affect competition?

To determine whether a foreign subsidy negatively affects competition, the EU Commission examines whether it alters competitive dynamics to the detriment of other EU market participants. This includes not only the activities of the subsidised undertaking but also downstream, upstream, and related markets.

The assessment follows a two-step process:

1. Establishing a reasonable link between the foreign subsidy and the beneficiary’s behaviour in the EU market; and 

2. Comparing the competitive situation with and without the subsidy, taking into account factors such as the amount, purpose, sectoral characteristics, and the size of the undertaking.

The FSR guidelines provide illustrative examples of distortions, including: (i) subsidies enabling a company to outbid rivals in M&A transactions, (ii) subsidies allowing aggressive pricing or expansion beyond market norms, harming competitors, (iii) subsidies influencing investment decisions (including high-risk or strategically important projects) and (iv) subsidies affecting value chains, such as through the relocation of suppliers or acquisition of EU-based intellectual property.

c.     Distortion in Public Procurement Procedures

The FSR Guidelines dedicate a section to public procurement, where the key issue is whether the foreign subsidy allows an operator to submit an unduly advantageous tender (through reduced prices, higher quality, or improved terms). The EU Commission examines:

• Subsidies granted to the tenderer, its non-autonomous subsidiaries, parent companies, or key subcontractors and suppliers involved in the bid;

• In some cases, subsidies granted to other entities within the corporate group, if they are not legally or factually restricted and may indirectly benefit the tenderer;

• Comparisons with other bids or the contracting entity’s estimates to determine whether the tender is “advantageous.” 

The “undue” nature of the advantage is assessed solely by the EU Commission, although contracting entities must provide all relevant information. An offer will not be considered “undue” if objective factors (such as efficiency gains) explain its advantageous nature.

2. The Balancing Test

Article 6 of the FSR allows the EU Commission, in the in‑depth phase of an investigation, to balance the negative effects of a foreign subsidy (distortion of competition) against positive effects on the subsidised activity and broader policy objectives.

The FSR Guidelines outline the methodology the EU Commission applies but emphasise that the assessment remains case‑specific.

a.     Positive effects

The EU Commission examines two types of positive effects:

• Effects on the development of the subsidised economic activity in the internal market: The EU Commission assesses whether the subsidy enables the activity to exist, or significantly alters its development (e.g., by remedying a market failure). Market failure must be proven by the party invoking it and is narrowly construed ;

• Broader effects linked to EU or other relevant policy objectives: The EU Commission may consider positive effects on other undertakings in the supply chain or on other economic activities of the same group, provided these are relevant. EU policy objectives, including those in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (e.g., environmental and social standards, R&D promotion), are particularly significant. Objectives from non-binding EU acts (communications, guidelines) or even non-EU policy goals may also be relevant if connected to the EU’s interests;

• For tenders, the EU Commission considers the availability of alternative sources of supply. A subsidised tender may be deemed positive if no other eligible offers exist, provided the tender is structured so that non-subsidised bidders could realistically participate (i.e., no exclusionary design of tender terms).

b.     General principles for the balancing test

 The balancing test is guided by several principles that shape the EU Commission’s assessment:

• Positive effects must be directly linked to the distortive subsidy. The party invoking them must demonstrate, with sufficient likelihood, that the subsidy caused (or could cause) a change in behaviour leading to those effects; 

• Subsidies causing serious distortions (especially those listed in Article 5(1) the FSR) are less likely to be offset by positive effects;

• The EU Commission distinguishes between negative effects that are unavoidable to achieve the policy objective and those exceeding what is necessary; and

• The EU Commission does not require the parties to provide a quantified comparison of positive and negative effects. Instead, it relies on a qualitative assessment, considering the nature, scope, and intensity of the effects in question.

The outcome of the balancing test directly affects how the case is resolved. If the positive effects outweigh the negative ones, the EU Commission may decide not to impose commitments or redressive measures. Conversely, if the negative effects prevail, the balancing test helps determine the scope and nature of any commitments or measures, which can be tailored to preserve the positive effects identified. While the test is usually carried out separately for each foreign subsidy, the EU Commission may, where appropriate, assess multiple subsidies jointly.

c.     Procedural aspects

The burden of proof lies with the party invoking the positive effects, which may include the investigated undertaking, Member States, third countries, or other economic operators. These parties must provide detailed and substantiated evidence, addressing the nature, likelihood, and significance of the alleged effects, the timeframe in which they are expected to materialise, the reasons why they are specific to the distortive subsidy, and an analysis allowing the EU Commission to determine whether the distortive effects go beyond what is necessary to achieve the positive effects. They must also demonstrate why the benefits are capable of mitigating or outweighing the distortion identified by the Commission.

Although evidence can be submitted at any stage of the investigation, the EU Commission is not required to consider materials filed at the final stage of the proceedings, even if it will make reasonable efforts to do so. For parties other than the investigated undertaking, submissions should ideally be made within one month of the publication of the summary notice. The investigated undertaking itself can supplement the information included in its notification, particularly in merger or public procurement cases, within the timeframe specified by the Commission in its Statement of Grounds..

3. Prior Notification Powers

The FSR grants the EU Commission discretionary authority to require prior notification of certain operations that would not otherwise trigger mandatory filing. Specifically, under Article 21(5) of the FSR, the EU Commission may call in concentrations falling below the standard thresholds, while Article 29(8) of the FSR allows it to require the notification of foreign financial contributions in public procurement procedures that would not otherwise be subject to review.

The EU Commission may exercise these powers where it suspects that foreign subsidies have been granted to the undertakings concerned within the three years preceding the transaction or tender. In deciding whether to request notification, the EU Commission takes into account several factors, including the strategic importance of the sector, value chain, or assets involved, particularly where critical infrastructure or innovative technologies are concerned. It also assesses the economic significance of the transaction or tender, considering the contract value and duration, the market presence and influence of the parties, and whether the foreign subsidy falls within the “high risk” categories listed in Article 5(1) of the FSR.

Through these powers, the EU Commission signals its intent to maintain close oversight of transactions and tenders in sensitive sectors, even when they fall below the usual thresholds.

4. What Should Businesses Do Now?

The draft FSR Guidelines confirm that the EU Commission intends to adopt a wide-ranging and case-specific approach in enforcing the FSR. For companies receiving third-country funding, particularly those involved in EU investments, concentrations, or public tenders, the implications are considerable.

 Thus, businesses should take proactive steps to mitigate regulatory and compliance risks. This includes conducting a thorough review of all foreign financial contributions to identify potential exposure under the FSR and establishing internal procedures to prepare for possible investigations or notification requests by the EU Commission. It is important for companies to gather and maintain documentation demonstrating either that the subsidies they have received do not distort competition or, where relevant, that any negative effects are outweighed by positive impacts, such as contributions to economic development or EU policy objectives.

The consultation period remains open until 12 September 2025, offering an opportunity for stakeholders to influence the EU Commission’s approach before the FSR Guidelines are finalised. Businesses should engage actively in the ongoing consultation process to raise concerns about the scope, predictability, and administrative burden of the draft FSR Guidelines. 

The FSR Guidelines are scheduled to be adopted by no later than 12 January 2026.

For further information, please contact :
Bruno Lebrun - Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be
Wafa Lachguer – w.lachguer@janson.be

Upcoming FSR Guidelines: What to Expect

As the EU Commission continues to roll out the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”), stakeholders across sectors are awaiting the publication of the FSR Guidelines that will shape its interpretation and enforcement.

These Guidelines, mandated under Article 46 of the FSR, will provide key clarifications on the EU Commission’s approach to foreign subsidies in mergers, public procurement, and broader market practices. The draft is expected for public consultation in July 2025, with final adoption planned by January 2026.

Objective

The Guidelines are not intended to amend the regulation itself, but to clarify how it will be applied in practice. According to Article 46 of the FSR, they must provide detailed information on:

• The criteria to identify distortive subsidies;

• How the Commission will conduct the balancing test, weighing distortions against positive market effects;

• The use of “call-in” powers, allowing the Commission to review transactions and subsidies not formally notifiable;

• The methodology for assessing foreign subsidies in public procurement procedures.

These clarifications are particularly important given the novel and cross-cutting nature of the FSR, which imports concepts from competition law, state aid control, and public procurement.

Contrary to the Commission’s guidelines in areas such as merger control or State aid, the upcoming FSR Guidelines will rely on a limited decisional practice. In both merger control and State aid, the Commission has drawn upon decades of experience and case-law. In contrast, the FSR only entered into force in mid-2023, and its implementation remains at a very early stage. To date, the Commission has published just one formal decision under the FSR — adopted on 24 September 2024 — which granted conditional approval, under the FSR, for the acquisition by Emirates Telecommunications Group Company PJSC (e&) of the non-Czech activities of PPF Telecom.

In this context, the Guidelines will play a particularly crucial role in establishing legal certainty for practitioners and companies.

Consultation process 

The Commission has already conducted targeted consultations, including:

• A questionnaire to all 27 Member States;

• Feedback from selected stakeholders: industry associations, academics, law firms, consumer groups, and others.

On 5 March 2025, the EU Commission published a Call for Evidence seeking feedback from Member States and main stakeholders on the main objectives, scope and context of the upcoming Guidelines regarding the implementation of the FSR.

In total, 45 responses were received (available on : Foreign Subsidies Guidelines).

Stakeholders welcomed the guidance initiative, but raised concerns and requests in four key areas:

• Distortion analysis: Stakeholders are calling on the EU Commission to adopt a rigorous approach when identifying distortions. They emphasize the importance of a high standard of proof, with clearer boundaries around which subsidies — such as regional aid or small-scale support — should not be presumed distortive by default. Many also stress the need for robust, economically grounded assessments tailored to different sectors, and for overall consistency with existing state aid jurisprudence and market definition;

• Public procurement procedures : Stakeholders seek for a broader analytical framework that goes beyond price to include qualitative award criteria. Stakeholders request precise definitions of what constitutes a “genuinely advantageous” tender and greater clarity on when notification thresholds apply. There is also a strong call to limit the administrative burden placed on contracting authorities and economic operators, especially in low-risk or recurring scenarios.

• Balancing test : Although the FSR already foresee a balancing of positive and negative effects, stakeholders request clearer guidance on its concrete application. There is also broad support for aligning this balancing exercise with existing state aid rules ;

• Call-in powers : The EU Commission’s ability to “call in” transactions that fall below notification thresholds is viewed with caution. Some stakeholders advocate for a strict and exceptional use of this power, reserved for cases with strong preliminary indications of distortion. Others would welcome a more active and flexible approach — including voluntary notifications — to pre-empt risks.

What’s Next?

The draft Guidelines will be open for comment via an eight-week consultation starting in July 2025. The EU Commission will use this feedback to amend the text before presenting the revised Guidelines to the FSR Advisory Committee and Member States in September 2025.

Final adoption of the Guidelines is expected by the end of 2025.

For further information, please contact :
Bruno Lebrun - Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be
Wafa Lachguer – w.lachguer@janson.be

Janson ESG Report: Building a Sustainable, Fair & Inclusive Future

Janson and its people are convinced that the legal profession plays a key role in the development of a truly sustainable, fair, and inclusive society. Our commitment to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles reflects our dedication to responsible business practices that benefit not only our organization but also our people, partners, clients, and the environment. We strive to foster a culture of integrity, inclusion, and sustainability.

We take great pride in helping our people, advancing diversity and inclusion, and creating a workplace where every person feels encouraged to grow and develop. We’re also focused on reducing our environmental impact and finding better, more sustainable ways of doing business.  Moreover, we uphold the highest standards of governance, ensuring transparency, accountability, and ethical practices at every level of our operations.

We are proud to share our very first ESG report and invite you to learn more about the progress we have made in integrating ESG principles throughout our operations.

16th package of EU Sanctions against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

The EU Council adopted the 16th package of restrictive measures on 24 February 2025, precisely three years after the launch of the armed conflict in Ukraine.

This new package expands the scope of the prohibitions across numerous sectors of the Russian economy, with a heightened focus on tackling circumvention, particularly in the maritime sector.

I.                    GENERAL OVERVIEW

The 16th package introduces key updates to the listing criteria and broadens the range of individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures:

·       Assets freezing: 48 individuals and 35 entities are added to the list subject to an asset freeze and a prohibition on making funds and economic resources available to them.  These individuals and entities are considered significant support to the Russian military complex or actively involved in sanctions circumvention ;

 ·       Anti-circumvention:  74 vessels are listed as they are forming a shadow fleet and contributing to Russia’s energetic revenues.  Those vessels are subject to a port access ban, a prohibition to obtain maritime and other services (insurance and brokering, flag registration, ship supply services, cargo loading services…);

 ·       Trade restrictions: five additional categories of sensitive items as advanced technologies are subject to export restrictions (e.g., dual-use chemical precursors).  Additionally, minerals, chemical, steel, glass materials are subject to export bans;

 ·       Financial sector: extension of the transaction ban in an attempt to list financial institutions and crypto asset providers that participate in the circumvention of the Oil Price Cap and facilitate transactions with listed vessels of the shadow fleet;

 ·       Transport: prevention of Russian ownership of more than 25% in EU road transport companies. This measure aims to reduce any potential attempt of circumvention through purchase by Russian persons of EU road transport undertakings.

II.                  FOCUS

Ø  Including two new criteria for listing individuals and entities

The new package includes two new criteria for listing individuals and entities in an effort  to effectively tackle the so-called “dark/shadow fleet” transporting Russia’s energy exports and to align with the measures adopted by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on 10 January 2025.

The new criteria result in the listing of individuals and legal entities (i) involved in vessels transporting Russian crude oil through high-risk shipping practices (e.g., AIS manipulation, concealed ship-to-ship transfers, or document falsification), or (ii) linked to Russia's military-industrial complex, including those providing material, financial, or logistical support for military technology, defense operations, and related supply chains.

Ø  Protective measures for EU operators

The 16th package defines measure shielding EU operators from Russian retaliatory measures.

EU operators are entitled to claim compensation for direct or indirect damages resulting from :

a.       Legal actions initiated by sanctioned entities or individuals in third countries (notably Russia);

and

b.      Disruptions to the performance of contracts or operations affected by EU sanctions.

To benefit from that protection, EU operators must demonstrate the lack of effective legal remedies in the jurisdiction where the foreign proceedings were initiated.

This provision aims to deter sanctioned entities from exploiting foreign courts to penalize EU operators complying with the EU sanctions.

Moreover, when no EU court has jurisdiction to hear such a claim, the new sanction Regulation provides for a forum necessitatis. This is a last-resort jurisdictional forum whereby EU courts may hear such claims when a sufficient connection exists with the Member State where the Court is located. For example (i) the EU operator’s domicile or place of business is in that Member State; or (ii) the EU company is incorporated under the laws of that Member State.

III.                KEY FIGURES FROM THE NEW LISTING

Notable figures highlight the 16th package's impact: 

a.       83 additional listings: 48 individuals linked to Russia’s military-industrial complex, circumvention efforts, and disinformation campaigns, and                35 entities involved in sectors such as maritime transport, crypto asset services, and industrial supply chains;

b.      74 additional vessels added to the sanctions list. The total listed vessels now number 153;

c.    53 new companies facing export restrictions, among which 34 companies based outside Russia, underscoring the EU’s focus on addressing international circumvention networks;

d.    13 additional financial institutions prohibited from accessing specialized financial messaging services and three banks added to the transaction ban due to their use of Russia’s SPFS to circumvent sanctions;

c.    two Moscow airports and four regional airports are targeted by the transport ban measures, plus five major ports;

e.    Eight additional media outlets in the EU where suspended.

See Regulation (EU) 2025/390, Regulation (EU) 2025/392, Regulation (EU) 2025/395 and Regulation (EU) 2025/398.

For more information, please contact:

Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

Cédric Alter – Partner – c.alter@janson.be

Recent Developments in Football: EU Court Rulings Balancing the Unique Nature of Sport and EU Law

 Bruno Lebrun and Candice Lecharlier present the recent judgments from the European Union’s top court in the football area.  These rulings mark a pivotal moment in football governance, balancing the unique nature of sport and EU law.

The full article is available via the following link : EU Court Rulings and Football Bodies | Chambers Expert Focus.

 For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

EU Adopts 15th Package of Sanctions against Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine

Today, the Council of the EU adopted its 15th package of restrictive measures, aiming to curb Russia's ability to sustain its war effort and addressing the circumvention of existing sanctions.

• General overview

The new package introduces several significant measures, including:

Ø  Assets freezing measures: Targets 54 individuals and 30 entities involved in undermining Ukraine's sovereignty, including military units, energy sector leaders, and individuals responsible for deportations and propaganda. For the first time, sanctions were imposed on Chinese firms supplying critical components to Russia's military. This means the assets of these individuals and entities are frozen, restricting their access to and use of financial resources;

Ø  Circumvention of sanctions: The EU expanded bans on maritime transport services for vessels aiding Russia’s shadow fleet in circumventing oil price caps or transporting stolen Ukrainian grain. The EU expanded bans on maritime transport services for vessels aiding Russia’s shadow fleet in circumventing oil price caps or transporting stolen Ukrainian grain;

Ø  Trade restrictions: Export restrictions on dual-use goods and technologies now extend to 32 new entities, including companies in third countries such as China, India, and Iran, which have supported Russia's military operations;

Ø  Protection for EU Businesses : Prohibition on recognizing Russian court rulings (e.g., "anti-suit injunctions") that penalize EU companies. Also, measures allow central securities depositories (CSDs) in the EU to unfreeze cash balances to meet legal obligations while avoiding retaliatory asset seizures in Russia (see above).

Ø  Facilitating Divestment: Extended deadlines for EU businesses to exit Russia, enabling a swift and orderly withdrawal from the Russian market.

• Focus: Amendment to Article 6b of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014

The Council introduced an additional exemption framework applicable to the National Settlement Depository (“NSD”).

This amendment allows for the release of frozen funds held by NSD, provided the following cumulative conditions are met:

1.      The exemption applies to frozen funds held by a CSD;

2.      The CSD must have accounts opened with NSD, and vice versa;

3.      An amount must have been debited from the CSD's accounts by NSD under Russian law or an equivalent measure without the CSD's consent;

4.      The released funds must only serve to allow the CSD to fulfill its legal obligations to its participants; and

5.      The funds must not be used in any way that violates sanctions, ensuring no direct or indirect benefit to NSD.

This marks the second time the EU has introduced an exemption framework for NSD after imposing sanctions on it on 3 June 2022. The first exemption, adopted on 6 October 2022 (Article 6b(5) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014), allowed Member States' competent authorities to release frozen funds held with NSD, provided the applicant had terminated their relationship with NSD before 7 January 2023. The purpose of the 2022 exemption was to reduce the flow of fund release requests, primarily from non-sanctioned individuals and entities whose assets were trapped in custodial chains involving NSD. However, this measure proved insufficient, as the high volume of requests continued to overwhelm national authorities, leaving them unable to process them efficiently.

The new exemption introduced in Article 6b(5j) focuses on the increasing litigation and retaliatory measures in Russia, which have led to the seizure of EU CSD assets. Thanks to this measure, CSDs can now request Member States' competent authorities to unfreeze cash balances and use them to meet their legal obligations to clients. This ensures the stability of the EU’s financial infrastructure while protecting EU companies from retaliatory harm.

See Regulation (EU) 2024/3189, Regulation (EU) 2024/3192, Regulation (EU) 2024/3177 and Regulation (EU) 2024/3183

For more information, please contact:

Bruno Lebrun – Partner – b.lebrun@janson.be

Cédric Alter – Partner – c.alter@janson.be

How can an abused company evade its own criminal prosecution?

Lawyer Stien Dijckmans, a member of the white-collar crime team in Ghent, wrote an article about the criminal co-prosecution of the company and the lack of a legislative framework on which this company can rely to defend its rights.

Here is the link to the article:

Wat bij misbruik van een mee-vervolgde venootschap ?

State Aid : German State Aid to counter the IRA

On 9 January 2024, the European Commission authorised a German State aid worth €902 million (€700 million in direct subsidies and €202 million in guarantees) to finance a battery production plant for electric vehicles by the Swedish company Northvolt in Germany.

This aid is provided in the context of the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework adopted by the European Commission in March 2023 - amended in November 2023 - which enables Member States to support projects aimed at achieving the objective of transitioning to a net zero emissions economy.[1]

This text provides the possibility for a Member State to align itself with the offer of a non-EU country if there is a serious risk that a company will relocate and invest outside the EU.  In the present case, the Commission considered that the measure was necessary to prevent Northvolt from setting up in the United States where Northvolt had already received an offer.  This makes it unprecedented in that the Commission explicitly states that it is granting this State aid to counter the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Inflation Reduction Act

The denomination of the US Inflation Reduction Act could be misleading. In fact, it provides for a number of reforms with the central idea being the climate and not, as one might imagine, measures aimed at fighting inflation itself. 

One of the main objectives of this law is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 2030.

However, behind these ecological stimuli lie tax incentives, as well as a binding mechanism that provides for the exclusive production and use of US energy resources.

Impact and challenges of the IRA on the European Union

It is easy to anticipate the IRA’s adverse effects on the European Union itself: companies based in the EU could be tempted to relocate some essential activities to the United States in order to benefit from significant tax advantages.

In 2022, President Ursula von der Leyen said in a speech to the European Parliament: "We have to come up with our own answer, our own European version of the Inflation Reduction Act".

The Temporary Crisis Framework for state aid is part of that answer and materialized in that German authorised state aid for the production of electric batteries by Northvolt.

This decision demonstrates the EU's determination to prevent significant strategic operators from flying out of the EU.

EU companies in the must take account of this regulatory possibility that has now become a reality.

Some would argue that this decision will no doubt reopen the debate on competition between those Member States that have the financial means to support this type of project, and the others.  Unfair, in our view, because such subsidies participates to the EU energy and digital sovereignty that will benefit the EU in its entirety.  

Moreover, companies should not lose sight of the support they can obtain directly from the European Union for projects concerning, in particular, the energy and digital transition.

[1] Communication from the Commission Temporary crisis and transition framework for State aid measures to support the economy following Russia's aggression against Ukraine 2023/C 101/03

Bruno LEBRUN

Zelia SELAMET

What does mediation mean ?

Our associate Nastassja Loriaux answers the legal question asked recently by the daily newspaper La Libre on Monday 8 January. In this article, she explains what mediation is and how it can be used to resolve a conflict and avoid going to court.

If you would like to read the full interview : La médiation, qu’est-ce que c’est ? - La Libre

Heritage succession: don't wait!

Are you wondering how to prepare your family succession? Our partner Arnaud Levy Morelle shares his 4 tips with you in an article published by Mediaplanet. He explains how to optimise your assets transfer and the steps to follow. Don't hesitate to contact us if you need personalised advice.

Here is the link to the article:

Succession patrimoniale : n’attendez pas ! - Planet Business (planet-business.be)

New Regulation Against Distortive Foreign Subsidies in the European Union

Bruno Lebrun and Candice Lecharlier presents the Regulation Against Distortive Foreign Subsidies in the European Union and its implications for the companies in an article for the Chambers Expert Focus (Chambers and Partners).

The full article is available via the following link : New Foreign Subsidies Regulation in the EU | Chambers Expert Focus.

For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

EU Sanctions : Rationale and Challenges

 Bruno Lebrun and Candice Lecharlier presents the EU sanctions regime and its main challenges in an article for the Chambers Expert Focus (Chambers and Partners).

The full article is available via the following link : Challenges of the EU Sanctions | Chambers Expert Focus.

For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

Nouveautés de la directive 2023/2225 relative aux contrats de crédit aux consommateurs

La directive 2023/2225 relative aux contrats de crédit aux consommateurs et abrogeant la directive 2008/48/CE a été publiée au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne du 30 octobre 2023. Elle entrera en vigueur le 19 novembre prochain et les Etats membres devront la transposer au plus tard le 20 novembre 2025. Dans cette newsletter, nous explorons les principales nouveautés par rapport à l'ancienne directive.

Champ d'application étendu à de nouveaux contrats et à de nouveaux acteurs

Les offres suivantes sont désormais couvertes par la réglementation :

- contrats de crédit dont le montant total du crédit est inférieur à 200 EUR

- contrats de location ou de crédit-bail dans le cadre desquels une simple option d'achat de l'objet du contrat est prévue dans le contrat ou dans un contrat séparé

- contrats de crédit accordés sous la forme d'une facilité de découvert, remboursable dans un délai d'un mois

- contrats de crédit sans intérêt et sans autres frais

- contrats de crédit en vertu desquels le crédit doit être remboursé dans un délai ne dépassant pas trois mois, et pour lesquels ne sont requis que des frais négligeables

- contrats de crédit dont le montant total du crédit est supérieur à 75.000 € (le plafond étant relevé à 100.000 €)

- contrats de crédit (non garantis par une hypothèque) à la rénovation d'un immeuble à usage résidentiel dont le montant total du crédit est supérieur à 100.000 €

- les plans " Buy Now Pay Later " (ou " BNPL ") en vertu desquels un prêteur tiers octroie un crédit à un consommateur pour la seule fin d'acheter des biens ou des services fournis par un prestataire, qui permettent aux consommateurs de faire des achats et de les payer au fur et à mesure

- les services de crowdfunding fournis aux consommateurs via une plateforme numérique en accès public.

Publicité et pratiques commerciales réglementées

Les publicités - nouvelles mesures pour celles qui n'indiquent pas un taux d'intérêt ou des chiffres liés au coût du crédit, mention des informations standard à l'aide d'un exemple représentatif et des publicités interdites sont prévues.

L'octroi d'un crédit non sollicité est interdit - Cela vise également l'envoi aux consommateurs de cartes de crédit préapprouvées non demandées, l'introduction unilatérale d'une nouvelle facilité de découvert ou de dépassement ou l'augmentation unilatérale de la limite de découvert, de dépassement ou d'utilisation d'une carte de crédit d'un consommateur.

Les ventes liées sont interdites. Il est interdit de proposer ou de vendre, sous forme de lot, un contrat de crédit en même temps que d'autres produits ou services financiers distincts, lorsque le contrat de crédit n'est pas proposé au consommateur séparément. Des exceptions sont permises et concernent l'ouverture ou la tenue d'un compte de paiement ou d'épargne pour certaines finalités, une police d'assurance appropriée liée au crédit avec, dans ce cas, l'obligation pour le prêteur d'accepter la police d'assurance établie par un prestataire différent en cas de niveau de garantie équivalent à celui de la police qu'il a proposée.

Les ventes groupées sont autorisées. Le contrat de crédit peut être proposé en même temps que d'autres produits ou services financiers distincts lorsque le contrat de crédit est aussi mis à la disposition du consommateur séparément (le cas échéant à des conditions différentes).

Renforcement des informations précontractuelles

Nouvelles informations générales - Les prêteurs ou, le cas échéant, les intermédiaires de crédit devront assurer la disponibilité permanente d'informations générales sur papier ou autre support durable (qui doit être choisi par le consommateur) sur toute la gamme des produits et services offerts en précisant les principales caractéristiques (la directive impose un contenu minimum).

SECCI - Le contenu et la mise en page sont modifiés. Si le SECCI est fourni moins d'un jour avant la conclusion du crédit, un rappel obligatoire doit être envoyé au consommateur entre 1 et 7 jours suivant la conclusion l'informant de la possibilité de se rétracter du contrat de crédit. 

Explications adéquates - Leur portée est étendue aux services accessoires proposés avec le crédit. Le but reste de permettre au consommateur de déterminer si le contrat et les services accessoires sont adaptés à ses besoins et à sa situation financière. Un contenu minimal y est précisé.

 Services de conseils facultatifs et, le cas échéant, payants

Les services de conseil sont définis comme la fourniture de recommandations personnalisées à un consommateur en ce qui concerne une ou plusieurs opérations liées à des contrats de crédit et dont la fourniture constitue une activité distincte de l'octroi de crédit et des activités d'intermédiaire de crédit. La prestation des services de conseil peut être rémunérée par le consommateur.

 Evaluation de la solvabilité étoffée

Les règles en matière d'évaluation de la solvabilité du consommateur sont plus détaillées. L'évaluation doit être rigoureuse et être effectuée dans l'intérêt du consommateur en prenant en compte tous les facteurs pertinents permettant de vérifier si le consommateur sera en mesure de remplir ses obligations jusqu'au terme du contrat. L'évaluation doit être effectuée sur la base d'informations pertinentes et exactes relatives notamment aux revenus et dépenses du consommateur, obtenues auprès de sources internes ou externes pertinentes, y compris auprès du consommateur. Les considérants de la directive en précisent le contenu : les informations devraient comprendre au moins les revenus et les dépenses du consommateur, en prenant en considération de manière appropriée les obligations actuelles du consommateur, entre autres les frais de subsistance du consommateur et de son ménage, ainsi que ses engagements financiers. Ces informations ne comprennent pas les données à caractère personnel qui révèlent l'origine raciale ou ethnique, les opinions politiques, les convictions religieuses ou philosophiques ou l'appartenance syndicale, les données génétiques, les données biométriques, des données concernant la santé ou des données concernant la vie sexuelle ou l'orientation sexuelle d'une personne physique. La solvabilité ne peut en outre pas être évaluée sur base des informations obtenues auprès des réseaux sociaux.

 Les informations recueillies sont vérifiées de manière appropriée, si nécessaire sur base de documents vérifiables.

 Services accessoires

Il est interdit de présupposer le consentement du consommateur à l'achat de services accessoires au crédit, notamment via des cases précochées. Le consentement doit être donné par un acte positif du consommateur.

Caps des taux

La directive impose la mise en place de mesures pour éviter les abus et faire en sorte que les consommateurs ne se voient imposer des taux débiteurs, des taux annuels effectifs globaux ou des coûts totaux du crédit pour le consommateur excessivement élevés, tels que des plafonds.

Soutien des consommateurs en difficulté financière

Mesures de renégociation des contrats - Les prêteurs auront l'obligation d'appliquer, s'il y a lieu, des mesures de renégociation des contrats des consommateurs en difficulté financière avant l'ouverture d'une procédure d'exécution. Ces mesures peuvent notamment porter sur un refinancement total ou partiel d'un contrat de crédit ou une modification des conditions existantes d'un contrat de crédit. La directive contient à cet égard une liste de modifications potentielles, toutefois sans préjudice des règles énoncées dans le droit national.

Conséquences financières des défauts de paiement - Si des frais sont autorisés en cas de défaut de paiement, ils sont limités à ce qui est nécessaire pour indemniser les coûts supportés par le prêteur suite au défaut de paiement. Les éventuels frais supplémentaires sont plafonnésConseils personnes endettées - Les prêteurs devront disposer de processus et politiques permettant la détection précoce des consommateurs qui éprouvent des difficultés financières. Ils devront orienter les consommateurs qui éprouvent des difficultés à respecter leurs engagements financiers vers des services de conseil aux personnes endettées. liliresc 

Conseil aux personnes endettées - Les prêteurs devront disposer de processus et politiques permettant la détection précoce des consommateurs qui éprouvent des difficultés financières. Ils devront orienter les consommateurs qui éprouvent des difficultés à respecter leurs engagements financiers vers des services de conseil aux personnes endettées.

Prescillia Algrain

New Medical law publication about physical restraints in general hospitals in Belgium

We are pleased to share Marie-Noëlle Lippens-de Cerf’s new Medical law publication about physical restraints in general hospitals in Belgium, tackling issues of medical liability and patients’ rights.
 
You can find it in the online version of the «Revue belge du dommage corporel et de médecine légale », available on Revue belge du dommage corporel et de médecine légale (Consilio manuque).

Newly released handbook on the law obligations

Flavie Vermander, counsel at Janson, has made a contribution to this handbook on the law of obligations by Prof. Thierry Vansweevelt and Britt Weyts. Flavie specializes in contract termination. Congratulations to all the contributing authors on the release of this essential handbook.

Full details regarding this new book can be found on the webpage of the editor Larcier : Handboek Verbintenissenrecht (tweede editie) (gebonden editie) ~ Boek ~ Larcier-Intersentia.

Fusions, acquisitions, PRJ : du neuf pour les entreprises

Les restructurations d’entreprises connaissent des évolutions significatives, que ce soit sur le plan légal ou au niveau des tendances. Peter Parez, Arnaud de Thier et Cedric Alter, Avocats chez Janson, nous en livrent quelques-unes essentielles, avec un conseil primordial à la clé : bien se faire accompagner.

Fusions et acquisitions d’entreprises

Lorsqu’on parle de fusions et d’acquisitions d’entreprises, Peter Parez et Arnaud de Thier sont catégoriques : « À l’heure actuelle, le marché est extrêmement frileux. Craignant les risques et les dettes, les banques sont réticentes à financer les actions de restructuration.  » Toutefois, ajoutent-t-ils aussitôt, «  il reste de réelles opportunités permettant aux entreprises de financer une restructuration. Même si les audits sont désormais plus exigeants et les demandes de garanties plus poussées, il ne faut pas avoir peur de s’engager : vu la réactivité du marché, les restructurations offrent toujours de belles opportunités de croissance. »

Dans le cadre de toute restructuration ou procédure de transfert, notre interlocuteur conseille de bien se faire accompagner, « en se tournant vers des cabinets full service tels que Janson pour pouvoir approfondir davantage les audits en matière RH, immobilière, administrative, de propriété intellectuelle, etc. » Un autre conseil donné par Arnaud de Thier est d’être bien plus patient qu’auparavant. Il s’agit de rassurer l’acquéreur ou le futur associé : « Avant la crise sanitaire, nous avions l’habitude d’avoir des transactions rapides. Aujourd’hui, la réflexion, les négociations et les audits prennent plus de temps, que ce soit lorsque des petites structures souhaitent intégrer des plus grosses structures, à la recherche de financements intragroupes, ou lorsque les grosses structures en quête d’opportunités se font accompagner judicieusement quand elles désirent intégrer de petites structures dans le but d’acquérir des nouveaux talents ou des parts de marché. »

Réorganisations judiciaires

Lorsqu’une entreprise ne parvient à surmonter ses difficultés financières, elle doit parfois passer par une restructuration judiciaire, avec les procédures de réorganisation judiciaire – ou PRJ – prévues à cet effet.

Ces procédures ont récemment fait l’objet d’une réforme. Comme le précise Cedric  Alter, «  la nouvelle loi, qui transpose une directive européenne, introduit un système de vote des plans de réorganisation par ‘classes  de créanciers’. Dans le prolongement de la loi sur la continuité des entreprises, ce système, obligatoire pour les grandes entreprises et optionnel pour les PME, présente l’avantage de permettre à l’entreprise de passer outre le blocage de la restructuration par un seul créancier ou un seul groupe des créanciers, moyennant certaines conditions évidemment. » Jusqu’’ici, il n’était pas rare qu’un créancier ayant une créance importante puisse bloquer une réorganisation judiciaire  ; un tel scénario pourra à présent être évité.

En contrepartie, les créanciers obtiennent l’assurance qu’ils ne seront pas moins bien traités dans le cadre d’une restructuration qu’ils ne le seraient dans le cadre d’une faillite ou d’une liquidation judiciaire. « Pour le législateur belge comme européen, tout l’art est d’avoir mis en place un système relativement équilibré, qui ne soit pas exagérément pro débiteur ou pro créancier. »

Cedric Alter souligne encore que la nouvelle loi renforce les outils confidentiels et préventifs à disposition d’une entreprise en difficulté : « Un des objectifs de la directive européenne est de repérer le plus tôt possible les entreprises en difficulté financière, en améliorant les outils de détection. De plus, on s’est rendu compte que pour certaines entreprises, rien que le fait de dire publiquement qu’elles sont en restructuration leur pose un préjudice commercial. Elles pourront à présent avoir recours également à une procédure sans publicité »

Pour lire l’entiereté du dossier « Optimize Your Business » avec Le Trends Tendances : Fusions, acquisitions, PRJ : du neuf pour les entreprises (planet-business.be)

Cédric ALTER – c.alter@janson.be

Peter PAREZ - p.parez@janson.be

Arnaud DE THIER - a.dethier@janson.be

Foreign Subsidies in the EU: the EU control is now a reality!

On 12 July 2023, the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”) started to apply, which means, among other things, that  the EU Commission may launch ex officio investigations on foreign subsidies in the EU.

Companies operating within the EU are indeed subject to a new set of rules aimed at countering the impact in the EU of potentially distorting subsidies from third countries. Two days earlier, on 10 July 2023, the EU Commission had adopted the Implementing Regulation detailing the procedural aspects for the implementation of the FSR.

Main guidance of the Implementing Regulation can be summarized as follows:

Reporting requirements  :

•  For concentrations: parties to the concentration must provide detailed information on all individual financial contributions (1) granted within the past three years, (2) amounting to at least €1 million, and (3) most likely to distort the internal market.  For the foreign financial contributions that are unlikely to distort the internal market, companies are just required to present an overview of financial contributions received over the past three years and amounting individually to at least €1 million.  Particular attention will be paid on financial contributions of €45 million or more over the past three-years.

•  For public procurements: companies must provide detailed information on all financial contributions (1) granted within the past three years, (2) amounting to at least €1 million, and (3) most likely to distort the internal market.  For all other foreign financial contributions, companies must provide an overview when the financial contribution amounts individually to at least €1 million, with a focus on contributions of at least €4 million per country over the last three-years.

  Notification Procedure

Starting from 12 October 2023, companies will be required to notify the EU Commission of any concentrations and participation in public procurement procedures that involve foreign financial contributions and meet the applicable notification thresholds.

The Implementing Regulation provides specific notification forms for each procedure, identifies the authorized person or entity responsible for submitting the notification, and specifies the effective date of notification.  It also gives some guidance on the articulation of that notification with other notifications under the EU regulation on merger control and on the regulation on the control of foreign direct investments.

Commission's Investigation Process

The Implementing Regulation details the procedures to be followed by companies when submitting commitments to address the concerns raised by the EU Commission during the investigation.

Procedural Rights of Parties

The Implementing Regulation defines the rules regarding the rights of the involved parties concerning the protection of confidential information, access to files and the opportunity to submit their observations.

For further information, please see our article on “The Council adopts the EU Regulation to control distortive foreign subsidies”. 

                                                                                                                                                                                        For more info, please contact: 

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be 

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

Wafa LACHGUER – w.lachguer@janson.be

Foreign Subsidies Regulation : Key Dates

The Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”) entered into force on 12 January 2023. This new legislation regulates the competitive distortions caused by foreign subsidies and attempts to ensure a level playing field for all companies operating in the EU.

Three new rules:

• The obligation to notify to the Commission concentrations involving a financial contribution by a non-EU government where (i) the acquired company, one of the merging parties, or the joint venture generates an EU turnover of at least €500 million, and (ii) the foreign financial contribution involved is at least €50 million;

• The obligation for companies to notify the participation in public procurement procedures, where (i) the estimated contract value is at least €250 million and (ii) the foreign financial contribution involved is at least €4 million per non-EU country;

• For all other market situations, the Commission, on its own initiative, can conduct ex-officio investigations when it suspects distortive foreign subsidies. This includes the possibility to request ad-hoc notifications for concentrations and public procurement procedures below the required thresholds.

Therefore, for companies that may be involved in any of these scenarios in the near future, here are some key dates to keep in mind:

• 12 July 2023 : the FSR will start to apply as of 12 July 2023. So, companies that concluded concentrations or are engaged in public procurement procedures before 12 July 2023, do not have to notify the Commission under the FSR. This also means that, as of this date, the Commission will be able to start ex-officio investigations;

• 12 October 2023 : the obligation for companies to notify concentrations and public procurement procedures falling within the scope of the FSR will be effective as of 12 October 2023;

• Mid-2023 : in the coming weeks, the Commission will publish a Draft Implementing Regulation for review and comments by stakeholders. This instrument will clarify the applicable rules and procedures, including forms for notification and calculation methods of time limits. As of that date, stakeholders who wish to respond will have 4 weeks to provide their feedback. The finalised text should be adopted by mid-2023.

For more info, please contact:

Bruno LEBRUN – Partner - b.lebrun@janson.be

Candice LECHARLIER - c.lecharlier@janson.be

Newly released Treaty on Banking & Finance (Dec. 22, 22)

Janson is proud to inform you that two of its members, David Raes and Guillaume Bouton, are among the authors of the newly released Treaty on Banking and Finance that was published on December 22nd, 2022.

In chapter 15, David analyzes in great detail the EU Regulation 2020/1503 on European crowdfunding service providers for business as well as its ramifications under Belgian law, a topic on which David already wrote extensively in the past.

While in chapter 16, Guillaume co-authored a contribution on the new trending topic of Initial Coin Offerings and crypto-assets, exploring the European and Belgian legislation, both present and future, that govern the new financial services related to crypto-assets.

This double contribution is a testament to the importance of academic work among Janson’s lawyers. 

Full details regarding this new treaty can be found on the webpage of the editor Larcier.