Monitoring References to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Field of law
112 case reports
When a consumer loan has been sold on, Italian courts let the borrower sue only whoever actually received the money — which means first working out how the two banks arranged the transfer between themselves. A justice of the peace asks whether Article 17 of the Consumer Credit Directive lets the consumer choose to sue either.
A European arrest warrant says it was issued for one offence, then ticks two boxes on the list of offences exempt from double criminality and adds a third offence of its own. A Maltese magistrates' court asks whether such a warrant is valid, what the speciality rule protects the person from, and whether it must ask for the warrant to be corrected.
After a dawn raid at Red Bull's premises, the Commission carried on examining the copied data in Brussels for seven weeks. Nexans says it must then reimburse the 'additional costs' that continuation causes. The Commission paid the travel and hotels but not the lawyers; the General Court agreed. Red Bull appeals on what 'additional' means.
A Sofia court sentencing a drug offender must deduct time spent on remand — but that remand was served in conditions significantly worse than the law allows. It asks whether Article 49 of the Charter requires harsher days to count for more, and whether any surplus can be banked against a future sentence.
Brussels I bis gives employees their own jurisdiction rules, which cannot be contracted out of. The Bundesarbeitsgericht asks whether a claim pleaded purely in tort escapes them when the wrong was done inside an employment relationship — or whether the relationship, not the label, decides where the case is heard.
The Court has twice told Bulgaria that mandatory minimum lawyers' fees set by the bar offend Article 101 TFEU. Bulgaria then moved the appointment of court-appointed representatives, and the setting of their fees, to the bar councils. A Blagoevgrad court asks in twenty-five questions whether that is the same restriction in new clothes.
Four years after the Court struck down public access to beneficial ownership registers, the replacement directive lets Member States shield an owner in 'exceptional circumstances to be laid down in national law'. Luxembourg defined those circumstances as the very risk that already triggers the shield. The Tribunal d'arrondissement asks what is left of the condition.
A parent withheld information about who the father of their child is. Sweden asks whether the EU law principle against fraud allows a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU to be refused — a right that exists for the child's sake, not the parent's.
Sweden will not grant a derived right of residence under Article 20 TFEU unless the applicant's identity is established. But the right exists to stop a Union citizen child being forced out of the EU, and the child's dependency does not depend on paperwork. The Migration Court of Appeal asks.
Bulgarian prosecutors want voice samples from a suspect and propose to get them by compelling answers to harmless questions, on pain of a fine or criminal consequences. Sofia City Court asks whether the right not to incriminate oneself permits it — and the answer turns on a list in a recital.
A consumer credit agreement is declared wholly invalid, but the money was drawn down and the lender wants it back. From which date does limitation run on that claim — the finding of invalidity, the drawdown, or each instalment of the contract that no longer exists? Sofia City Court asks.
In Estonian consumer insolvency a credit claim already covered by a final judgment counts as uncontested — even where the reasons do not show that any court ever asked whether the lender assessed the borrower's ability to repay. The Riigikohus asks whether finality can carry a question that was never put.
An Estonian order for payment issues on a consumer credit claim without any court checking whether the lender ever assessed the borrower's ability to repay — and enforcement checks nothing either. The consumer has fifteen days to object, on papers that never mention the point. The Riigikohus asks whether that is enough.
The Return Directive defines return to a third country as one the person 'voluntarily decides to return' to. If that word governs the choice of destination, a State cannot send anyone to a safe third country they did not pick. The Dutch Council of State asks.
A court expert produced his report with the help of software. Ten questions follow: is that software a high-risk AI system, how much of the algorithm must the expert explain, and does the AI Act apply at all to a dispute that predates it? A Sofia court asks.
A Polish judge was released from her cases against the rules, and the replacement was drawn by a random-allocation system built by the Ministry of Justice whose source code nobody may inspect. Is a court composed that way still a tribunal established by law? The Warsaw Regional Court asks.
A Slovenian enforcement order based on an authentic document tells the debtor what the claim is and orders payment in the same act. Slovenian courts read that as failing the European Enforcement Order's duty to inform the debtor. The Koper appeal court asks whether that reading breaches Regulation 805/2004.
One authority withdraws international protection and finds no risk of ill-treatment. A second authority then orders removal. Must it examine that risk again from the beginning — and what happens to evidence the person could have produced earlier but did not? The Bremen administrative court asks.
Bulgaria's Supreme Judicial Council sets the basic pay of judges in the middle ranks with no objective, predictable, stable or transparent rules to bind it. A Razgrad court asks whether Article 19(1) TEU tolerates that much discretion over a judge's salary.
An EAW issued by a public prosecutor with no pre-surrender judicial review, resting on a national warrant whose judge never assessed proportionality: the Rechtbank Amsterdam asks whether the 'dual level of protection' is still real. Answered by reasoned order on 2 July 2026: it is, provided the issuing State offers judicial review after surrender.
The Luxembourg General Court gave Google a pass in September 2024, knocking out the Commission’s whopping €1.49 bn fine; honestly, many of us in the tech risk sector expected a quick confirmation of the penalty, making this annulment a massive … Continue reading →
By judgment of 14 March 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:181) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 7 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:948) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 29 May 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:335) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Examination of the question has not disclosed any issues capable of affecting the validity of Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24…
By judgment of 8 June 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:430) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine,…
By judgment of 25 January 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:37) the Court held that Mr Schrems had not lost his consumer status for his own Facebook account through his books, lectures and campaigning, so he could sue Facebook in Vienna.
By judgment of 20 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:992) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 15 March 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:185) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 13 September 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:715) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 54 of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending…
By judgment of 20 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:994) the Court held that a candidate's written answers in a professional examination — and the examiner's comments on them — are the candidate's personal data, opening access and rectification rights adapted…
By judgment of 5 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:738) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and…
By judgment of 23 January 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:26) the Court held that the European Firearms Pass provisions of the Firearms Directive do not apply to the territory of Gibraltar, as the Directive's travel-facilitation rules concern the free movement of…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 17 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:766) the Court held that a legal person claiming injury from online publications may sue for its entire damage where it has its centre of interests, and that claims for rectification and removal…
By judgment of 23 January 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:25) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 26 July 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:597) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 27 February 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:118) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Since neither the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco nor the Protocol between the European…
On 5 June 2018 the Grand Chamber ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2018:388) that the administrator of a Facebook fan page is a joint controller, together with Facebook, of the processing of visitors' data through the Insights statistics — and that the German supervisory…
By judgment of 13 September 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:676) the Court held that Member States may not adopt emergency measures against authorised GMOs such as MON 810 maize unless it is evident that the products are likely to constitute a serious risk to health…
By judgment of 27 September 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:725) the Court held that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a data-protection claim reaches a court is compatible with Article 47 of the Charter if it causes no substantial delay or…
By judgment of 8 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:935) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 27 February 2018 the Grand Chamber ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2018:117) that Article 19(1) TEU obliges Member States to ensure that courts which may apply EU law meet the requirements of effective judicial protection, including independence — though Portugal's…
By judgment of 21 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:974) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 26 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:814) the Court held that duplicate bridge, whose physical element is negligible, is not a "sport" for the purposes of the VAT exemption — whatever its benefits for mental health and discipline — while noting…
By judgment of 9 June 2016 in the joined Pesce cases (ECLI:EU:C:2016:428) the Court upheld the Commission's Xylella fastidiosa decision: the obligation to remove host plants, including asymptomatic ones, within 100 metres of infected plants is a…
On 12 June 2018 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2018:423) that a mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe is not a sign consisting "exclusively of the shape" within Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Directive — the red sole is principally…
By judgment of 20 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:790) the Court held that the terms of protection in the Term Directive do not apply to copyright that had been extinguished before 1 July 1995, and that EU law does not preclude national legislation under…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 16 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:373) the Court held that a company fined for refusing to answer a cross-border tax-information order may invoke Article 47 of the Charter: the national court must be able to review whether the…
By judgment of 19 June 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:464) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 10 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:745) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 22 June 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:489) the Court held that the Dutch pre-pack — insolvency prepared in advance to relaunch the business immediately after bankruptcy — does not fall within the Article 5(1) insolvency exception of the Transfers…
By judgment of 28 July 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:603) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
Can the Austrian branch of the World Wildlife Fund invoke the Aarhus Convention and the EU’s water framework Directive to make legal objections to a local authority which is deciding whether to grant a water licence to a company wanting to build a hydroelectric power station? And what is to be done…
By judgment of 5 June 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:392) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 21 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:976) the Court held that in an action for breach of an online-resale prohibition in a selective distribution network, the "place where the damage occurred" under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is the Member State…
The reference was decided in the joined judgment of 30 January 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:44), delivered under the lead case C‑360/15. The Grand Chamber held that retail trade in goods is a 'service' within Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/123, and — the point the…
On 27 September 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:724) that where co-defendants in different Member States are sued over the same supply chain, a Community-design court can grant remedies with EU-wide effect against both.
By judgment of 4 April 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:255) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of…
By judgment of 18 July 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:562) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the…
Joined with Tele2 Sverige and decided by Grand Chamber judgment of 21 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:970): yes, Digital Rights Ireland's standards bind national regimes — Article 15(1) of the e-Privacy Directive, read with the Charter, precludes general and…
By judgment of 18 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:390) the Court held that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary with a seat in a Member State is an "establishment" of its non-EU parent for Article 97(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation where it is a…
By judgment of 22 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:468) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
Inside a roll of toilet paper is a cardboard core. Does this internal element form part of the toilet paper’s packaging? It is a question which has stymied the French courts. The answer depends on the word ‘packaging’ which is … Continue reading →
By judgment of 19 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:780) the Court held that the Framework Directive does not prevent a Member State from merging its telecoms regulator into a multi-sector authority, but dismissing the NRA's president and board before the end…
By judgment of 28 July 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:608) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic…
By judgment of 26 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:801) the Court held that a product whose essential manufacturing steps are carried out in a pharmacy as part of its normal business, producing up to 100 dispensing-ready packages a day, is not prepared…
By judgment of 25 January 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:36) the Court held that Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive does not preclude national legislation allowing a copyright holder to claim, without proving actual loss, a lump sum of twice the hypothetical…
Can the Dutch Data Protection Agency exert any control over companies based in the UK and the USA which conduct covert surveillance on Dutch territory? And in the event of an individual’s data processing law rights under Dutch law being … Continue reading → Continue reading →
Canada and the EU have negotiated a new Passenger Name Record Agreement. A plank of the Agreement involves the transfer and processing of data. The European Parliament is asking the CJEU for a legal opinion on the compatibility of that … Continue reading → Continue reading →
On 28 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:611) that Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive precludes flat-rate schemes which cap recoverable lawyers' fees so low that the winning party is not assured recovery of at least a significant and…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 28 March 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:236) the Court confirmed its jurisdiction to review the validity of CFSP restrictive measures by preliminary ruling — a constitutional first — and found nothing affecting the validity of the…
On 16 June 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:449) that purely financial damage which materialises directly in the claimant's bank account cannot, by itself, anchor jurisdiction as the "place where the harmful event occurred" under Article 5(3) of…
By judgment of 27 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:821) the Court held that it has jurisdiction to interpret harmonised technical standards adopted under the Construction Products Directive — EN 13242 forms part of EU law for preliminary-ruling purposes —…
By judgment of 8 November 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:836) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 8(1) and Articles 25 and 29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the…
By judgment of 9 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:419) the Court held that "reasonable compensation" for infringing a Community plant variety right covers the fee that would have been due for licensed production plus damage actually suffered, but includes no…
On 4 May 2016 the Court upheld the Second Tobacco Products Directive in full (ECLI:EU:C:2016:325): the menthol ban, the labelling and standardisation rules, the leeway for further national packaging measures and the specific e-cigarette regime of Article…
By judgment of 22 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:721) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “The fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the…
By judgment of 1 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:644) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 7 April 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:216) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal…
By judgment of 23 November 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:890) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 15 September 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:689) that a shopkeeper offering free open Wi-Fi provides a "mere conduit" service and cannot be held liable in damages for users' infringements.
By judgment of 1 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:638) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Articles 10, 11 and 13 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, on the protection of individuals with…
By judgment of 1 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:639) the Court gave "establishment" a broad, flexible reading: even minimal real and effective activity through stable arrangements — a Hungarian-language property site, a local representative, a Hungarian bank…
On 6 October 2015 the Grand Chamber declared the Safe Harbour adequacy decision invalid (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650): a regime permitting generalised access by US authorities to transferred data compromised the essence of Article 7 of the Charter, and the absence…
On 6 October 2015 the Grand Chamber declared the Safe Harbour adequacy decision invalid (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650): a regime permitting generalised access by US authorities to transferred data compromised the essence of Article 7 of the Charter, and the absence…
By judgment of 1 October 2015 in the joined Trijber and Harmsen cases (ECLI:EU:C:2015:641) the Court held that Amsterdam canal-boat tours fall within the Services Directive, and that authorisations issued in limited numbers because of scarce resources may…
By judgment of 11 June 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:378) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic…
By judgment of 6 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:656) the Court held that a charge for supplying environmental information may cover the costs genuinely attributable to supplying it — including a reasonable share of staff time and overheads — but not the…
By judgment of 16 June 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:400) the Court held that the ECB's OMT programme falls within the central bank's monetary-policy mandate: with its conditionality, selectivity and safeguards against circumventing the prohibition of monetary…
By judgment of 15 January 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:10) the Court held that the Database Directive does not apply to a database protected neither by copyright nor by the sui generis right, so its user-freedom guarantees (Articles 6, 8 and 15) do not override…
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:471) the Court held that an alleged misapplication of EU trade-mark law by a court of the Member State of origin does not engage the public-policy refusal ground of Article 34(1) of Brussels I: recognition may be…
When the EU Commission imposes a fine on a cartel but does not apportion how much each company should pay, then is it a matter for national law whether and how that fine is paid between the individual members of the cartel? Or if it is a matter of EU law, then does EU law contain provisions as to…
By judgment of 11 December 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2435) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1) Articles 41(1), 43 and 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of…
By judgment of 12 February 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:86) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 16 January 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:7) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and…
By judgment of 11 September 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2194) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 11 September 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2209) the Court held that the E-Commerce Directive covers an online newspaper remunerated by advertising, but that a publisher which knows of and controls the information it posts is not a "mere conduit",…
By judgment of 19 June 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2012) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 10 April 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:252) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended…
On 9 April 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:244) that Regulation 1383/2003 does not preclude customs authorities themselves, absent any initiative by the rightholder, from initiating and conducting the proceedings to determine whether detained goods…
Are Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the EU’s data retention Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? Facts There are three actions to this reference from the Austrian Constitutional Court. Each concerns the EU’s data retention Directive…
The reference was decided in the joined Willems judgment of 16 April 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:238): the fingerprint obligation for passports stands (as upheld in Schwarz), and Regulation 2252/2004 does not govern any subsequent storage or use of the biometrics…
The reference was decided in the joined Willems judgment of 16 April 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:238): Regulation 2252/2004 does not apply to identity cards at all, whatever their travel validity — so the fingerprint requirement for Dutch ID cards was a purely…
By judgment of 16 April 2015 in the joined Willems cases (ECLI:EU:C:2015:238) the Court held that Regulation 2252/2004 obliges the taking of fingerprints for passports (as upheld in Schwarz) but does not govern any subsequent use or storage of that…
On 16 May 2013 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2013:305) that Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation does not allow jurisdiction over one presumed participant in a tort to be established at the place where another participant, not sued in that court, acted.
By judgment of 3 April 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:215) the Court held that where several supposed perpetrators of copyright damage acted in different Member States, Article 5(3) of Brussels I does not give jurisdiction at the causal-event place over a defendant…
On 5 June 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:1318) that jurisdiction under Article 93(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation lies only in the Member State where the defendant itself committed the alleged infringement, and cannot be founded on another…
On 27 November 2012 the full Court upheld the European Stability Mechanism (ECLI:EU:C:2012:756): the simplified revision of Article 136 TFEU was valid, and the no-bailout clause of Article 125 TFEU does not prohibit a stability mechanism whose assistance…
The EU Commission has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union whether the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) complies with the EU law. Facts ACTA is the acronym for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It is a treaty supplementing another key piece of international law…
On 8 April 2014 the Grand Chamber declared the Data Retention Directive 2006/24 invalid in its entirety (ECLI:EU:C:2014:238): blanket retention of everyone's traffic and location data, without differentiation, limits or objective access criteria, exceeded…
On 13 May 2014 the Grand Chamber delivered one of the most consequential judgments in EU law (ECLI:EU:C:2014:317): a search engine is a controller processing personal data when it indexes the web, the Directive reached Google through its Spanish…
By judgment of 3 October 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:635) the Court held that in online copyright cases Article 5(3) of Brussels I gives jurisdiction to the courts of a Member State which protects the copyright relied on and where the website is accessible — no…
By judgment of 18 July 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:489) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.