Judicial activities

A station operator repeatedly asked her employer to appoint her to a position with fixed working hours. Her request was based on the need to care for her son, who has extensive and comprehensive needs arising from disability. Her employer provided her with some accommodations on a provisional basis, but refused to make those accommodations permanent. The station operator contested that refusal and the case reached the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. That court referred questions to the Court of Justice because it had doubts as to the interpretation of EU law with regard to protection against indirect discrimination of an employee who cares for his or her minor child who has severe disabilities, while not having a disability him- or herself. The Court replied by confirming that the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability under the Framework Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation also extends to an employee who is subject to such discrimination because of the assistance that that person provides to his or her child who has a disability.

Judgment of 11 September 2025, Bervidi (C‑38/24)

The Danish Law on Public Housing seeks to reduce the percentage of public family housing units in ‘transformation areas’. These areas are characterised, inter alia, by the fact that the proportion of ‘immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants’ residing in those areas has exceeded 50% during the last five years. Under that law, some of the leases on public family housing units in two residential areas in the Municipalities of Slagelse and Copenhagen have been or were to be terminated in the near future. The Danish court hearing disputes regarding those terminations is uncertain whether the legislation at issue constitutes direct or indirect discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin. By its judgment, the Court of Justice clarified which situations may constitute direct discrimination based on ethnic origin. The Court noted that ethnic origin is based on several factors. One factor taken in isolation, such as nationality or country of birth, is insufficient to determine whether a person belongs to a particular ethnic group. For the purpose of examining whether there may be direct discrimination, it will be for the national court to ascertain whether the criterion relating to the proportion of immigrants and their descendants is truly based on the ethnic origin of the majority of the inhabitants of ‘transformation areas’ and whether, as a result, they suffer less favourable treatment, such as an increased risk of early termination of their leases. If the national court finds that there is possible indirect discrimination, it will have to examine whether this is nevertheless justified. It would be for that court, inter alia, to ensure, in that regard, that the law at issue pursues an objective in the public interest in a proportionate manner and respects, in particular, the fundamental right to respect for the home.

Judgment of 18 December 2025, Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling Schackenborgvænge (C‑417/23)

In two judgments, the Polish Constitutional Court declared certain provisions of the Treaties, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, to be contrary to the national Constitution and expressly described the Court’s case-law on the right to effective judicial protection as exceeding the powers conferred on it (ultra vires). Taking the view that those judgments disregard several fundamental principles of EU law, including its primacy, the European Commission brought an action against Poland for failure to fulfil obligations. The Court upheld that action and ruled that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations because its Constitutional Court had infringed the principle of effective judicial protection and disregarded the primacy, autonomy, effectiveness and uniform application of EU law, as well as the binding effect of the Court’s decisions. The Court also upheld the Commission’s action in so far as it concerned serious irregularities vitiating the appointment of three judges of the Polish Constitutional Court and of its President, calling into question the status of that Constitutional Court as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law within the meaning of EU law.

Judgment of 18 December 2025, Commission v Poland (Ultra vires review of the case-law of the Court – Primacy of EU law) (C‑448/23)

Further to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine in 2022, the European Union adopted a series of restrictive measures. In 2023, the Council of the European Union extended the criteria under which persons or entities may be targeted by those measures. A new criterion thus serves to freeze the funds and economic resources of entities operating in the Russian IT sector with a license issued by the Centre for Licensing, Certification and Protection of State Secrets of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) or a ‘weapons and military equipment’ licence administered by the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade. Positive Group PAO, a Russian company active in the cybersecurity sector, holds such a licence via its subsidiary and was included on the list of entities subject to sanctions. It sought annulment of that inclusion but the General Court dismissed its action. The General Court considered that the criterion used is clear, foreseeable as a matter of law and proportionate to the objectives pursued, which consist in exerting pressure on Moscow and restricting its capacity to engage in warfare, including in the field of information. The Council had been able to find, without committing any error, that the company could be targeted on account of its reliance on an FSB licence, even though that licence is held by its subsidiary.

Judgment of 10 September 2025, Positive Group v Council (Τ‑573/23)

A third-country national may have his or her application for international protection rejected under an accelerated border procedure when his or her country of origin is designated as ‘safe’ by a Member State. The Court made clear that that designation may be made by a legislative act, provided that that act can be subject to effective judicial review. The sources of information on which that designation was based must be accessible to the applicant and to the national court or tribunal. However, a Member State may not include a country in the list of safe countries of origin if that country does not offer adequate protection to its entire population.

Judgment of 1 August 2025, Alace and Canpelli (C‑758/24 and C‑759/24)

Two asylum seekers in Ireland had been forced to live in conditions that deprived them of their dignity after the State argued that its centres had reached saturation point in order to refuse to provide them with accommodation. The Court found that that type of refusal, even in the context of a mass, unforeseeable influx of applicants for international protection, constitutes a serious infringement of EU law and may trigger the liability of the State. The Court recalled that the Member States are required, under the ‘Reception Conditions’ Directive, to guarantee applicants for international protection reception conditions which ensure an adequate standard of living, whether through housing, financial aid, vouchers or a combination of those forms of support, to lead a life of dignity.

Judgment of 1 August 2025, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and Others (C‑97/24)

An Iraqi national had applied for asylum in Greece alleging that there was a genuine risk to his life. His application was rejected and then his appeal against that decision was found to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ solely because he had failed to appear in person before the competent committee. In such a case, Greek legislation provided for an automatic presumption that the appeal has been improperly brought. The Court held that that rule infringes EU law: the requirement to appear in person in order for an appeal to be examined is disproportionate where its sole purpose is to verify the applicant’s presence and not for him or her genuinely to be heard. Greece should have offered other less restrictive solutions, such as representation by a lawyer, appearance before a local authority or simply proof of the applicant’s presence so as to ensure genuine access to an effective remedy.

Judgment of 3 July 2025, Al Nasiria (C‑610/23)

A German company sold a saffron and melon juice-based food supplement claiming that it improved mood and reduced stress and fatigue. An association contested that advertising practice before the courts considering that it made health claims that are contrary to EU law. The Court of Justice held that, since the Commission has not completed the scientific examination of health claims relating to botanical substances and has not included them in the official lists, such claims cannot be used in advertising unless they are covered by a transitional regime, which is not the case here.

Judgment of 30 April 2025, Novel Nutriology (C‑386/23)

In 2019, the Italian company Nero Lifestyle filed with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) an application for registration of the word sign NERO CHAMPAGNE. The Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité objected to its registration. They submitted that the trade mark could take unfair advantage of the reputation of ‘Champagne’ PDO products, the protection of which offers a guarantee of quality due to their geographic provenance. The opposition was rejected in part by EUIPO and the professional bodies brought proceedings before the General Court. In its judgment, the General Court annulled EUIPO’s decision and upheld the opposition. The application for registration of the trade mark NERO CHAMPAGNE was thus rejected.

Judgment of 25 June 2025, Comité interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne and INAO v EUIPO – Nero Lifestyle (NERO CHAMPAGNE) (T‑239/23)

The Rubik’s Cube cannot be protected as an EU trade mark: the General Court confirmed the annulment of the trade marks registered for that famous, three-dimensional puzzle. EUIPO had considered that the shape of the cube, its grid structure and the differentiation of the faces represented technical elements that were essential to its functioning, making it impossible for them to be protected by trade mark law. Spin Master, the proprietor of the trade marks in question, submitted that certain elements, in particular the colours, were not technical. The General Court rejected those arguments, explaining that the colours are merely a secondary detail that serves to distinguish the faces, and that the essential components of the shape – the squares, the grid structure and the differentiation of the faces – fulfil a technical requirement: they enable the rotation and identification of the elements of the puzzle. Since all the cube’s essential characteristics are associated with its function, they cannot be protected as a trade mark, and EUIPO’s decisions were therefore confirmed.

Judgments of 9 July 2025, Spin Master Toys UK v EUIPO – Verdes Innovations (Shape of a cube with faces having a grid structure) (T-1170/23 à T-1173/23)

The Court annulled the EUIPO decisions which had revoked Ferrari’s rights in the word mark TESTAROSSA for cars, parts, accessories and scale models, after the Office considered that the trade mark had not been put to genuine use between 2010 and 2015. The General Court found that, even though the Testarossa model had not been produced since 1996, second-hand cars had been sold during the period in question by dealers and authorised distributors, and that that use, combined with the certification service provided by Ferrari, had constituted genuine use of the trade mark with the implicit consent of the manufacturer. It held similarly in relation to parts and accessories, the origin of which had been verified as part of the certification service. As regards scale models, it accepted that the trade mark had been used by third parties who had affixed the words ‘Ferrari Official Licensed Product’, which had guaranteed commercial origin of the toys and demonstrated genuine use with Ferrari’s implicit consent. Thus, the General Court concluded that Ferrari had indeed continued to use the TESTAROSSA trade mark in relation to all the goods in question.

Judgments of 2 July 2025, Ferrari v EUIPO – Hesse (TESTAROSSA) (T-1103/23 and T-1104/23)

Apple retains a commission from the sale price of third-party apps sold in its App Store. According to two foundations in the Netherlands, which defend the collective interests of multiple unidentified but identifiable users of Apple devices, that commission is excessive and those users suffer damage. The two foundations argue that Apple’s conduct is anticompetitive and brought actions on that basis before the Netherlands courts. Apple, however, contends that the Netherlands court does not have jurisdiction because the alleged harmful event did not occur in the Netherlands and, in particular, in Amsterdam. Questions having been referred to it in that connection, the Court of Justice stated that the App Store in question is designed specially for the Netherlands market. The damage allegedly suffered when purchases are made in that virtual space can therefore occur in that territory, irrespective of the place where the users concerned were situated at the time of the purchase. The Netherlands court therefore has international and territorial jurisdiction.

Judgment of 2 December 2025, Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores Claims (C‑34/24)

A former leader of ETA, who had already been sentenced in France to 20 years’ imprisonment for terrorism-related offences, is being prosecuted in Spain for the same attack committed in 1997, which could bring her total sentence to at least 50 years without a statutory cap. Further to a reference from a Spanish court about the application of the principle ne bis in idem, the Court of Justice recalled that a person cannot be prosecuted twice in the European Union in relation to the same acts, even if the legal classification differs from one Member State to another. It is for the Spanish court to determine whether the acts that were the subject of proceedings in France are substantively the same as those for which the person is being prosecuted in Spain.

Judgment of 11 September 2025, MSIG (C‑802/23)

A woman had discovered that a false advertisement published on the Romanian website www.publi24.ro stated that she offered sexual services and contained photographs of her, used without her consent, and her telephone number. Russmedia Digital, the operator of the website, removed the advertisement within an hour, but it had already been copied to other websites. After being awarded compensation at first instance and then a finding being made for that company on appeal on the ground that it was a mere hosting service, the woman brought the case before the Cluj Court of Appeal (Romania), which put questions to the Court of Justice concerning the obligations on an online marketplace under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Court held that the operator of an online marketplace is responsible for the processing of the personal data contained in advertisements published on its platform and must, before any publication, identify advertisements that contain sensitive data, verify the identity or the explicit consent of the person concerned, and refuse to publish if such consent is not given. It also clarified that the operator had to implement technical measures to prevent sensitive advertisements from being copied unlawfully to other websites, and that it could not rely on the exemption from liability provided for in the Directive on electronic commerce to avoid the obligations imposed by the GDPR.

Judgment of 2 December 2025, Russmedia Digital and Inform Media Press C‑492/23)

An association challenged, before the French data protection authority, the requirement that SNCF Connect customers indicate their title, ‘Monsieur’ or ‘Madame’ (‘Mr’ or ‘Ms’), when making an online purchase, taking the view that that collection of gender identity data was unnecessary having regard to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Court of Justice recalled that only data that are strictly useful can be collected and that processing is lawful only if it is indispensable for the performance of a contract or justified by a clearly explained legitimate interest. Lastly, the Court clarified that such processing cannot be justified by a legitimate interest if that interest is not declared, if it goes beyond what is strictly necessary or if it risks undermining fundamental rights, in particular in connection with discrimination on grounds of gender. The collection of data regarding customers’ titles is not objectively indispensable, in particular where its purpose is to personalise commercial communications.

Judgment of 9 January 2025, Mousse (C‑394/23)

An Austrian customer was refused a EUR 10-per-month mobile phone contract after a private company had used an entirely automated process to determine that her credit rating was insufficient. An Austrian court found that that company had not complied with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) because it had failed to explain how its decision had been taken. The Court of Justice took the view that a data subject is entitled to a clear explanation when his or her personal data are processed: that explanation must state which data were used and how they influenced the outcome, potentially by demonstrating what would have changed if certain data had been different. The undertaking cannot hide behind trade secrecy to refuse to disclose that information; if such secrecy is claimed, it is for the court or the supervisory authority to decide to what extent access can be granted.

Judgment of 27 February 2025, Dun & Bradstreet Austria (C‑203/22)

Mr Philippe Latombe, a French citizen, sought the annulment of the European Commission decision authorising the transfer of personal data between the European Union and the United States. In his view, the US system did not offer an adequate level of protection, in particular on account of the lack of independence of the ‘Data Protection Review Court’ (DPRC) and the mass collection of data by the US intelligence agencies. The General Court dismissed the action. It took the view that the United States have strengthened their legal framework as regards data protection since the adoption of the new executive order in 2022 and that the DPRC offers sufficient guarantees of independence. Its judges may be dismissed only for cause and the intelligence agencies may not influence their work. The General Court also found that the bulk collection of data is not contrary to EU law, as an ex post judicial review is guaranteed by the DPRC. Furthermore, the European Commission will continue to be required to monitor compliance with that framework on a continuous basis and may suspend the decision if the protection offered by the US system declines.

Judgment of 3 September 2025, Latombe v Commission (T‑553/23)

The General Court ordered the European Commission to pay EUR 400 in damages to a German citizen whose personal data had been transferred to the United States when he had registered for an event on the Conference on the Future of Europe website. By using the option ‘sign in using Facebook’ on EU Login, the IP address of the individual concerned had been transferred to Meta Platforms without appropriate safeguards or any decision on the adequacy of protection applicable at that time. The General Court took the view that the Commission had to be held responsible for that transfer and that it had not complied with any of the conditions laid down in EU law for transferring data to a third country. The General Court found that there had been a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals and non-material damage associated with the uncertainty as regards data processing, which triggers the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

Judgment of 8 January 2025, Bindl v Commission (T‑354/22)

Greece is found to have failed to comply with a judgment of 2014 ordering it to put an end to the use of a landfill in the Zakynthos National Maritime Park, a protected habitat of the Caretta turtle. Despite exchanges with the Commission between 2014 and 2023, the landfill was not closed or developed in accordance with the European directives on waste, and it continued to receive waste until the end of 2017. Finding that failure to fulfil obligations to be persistent, the Court imposed on Greece a periodic penalty payment of EUR 12 500 for each day of delay until the judgment has been complied with in full, plus a lump sum of EUR 5.5 million, on account of the seriousness and the duration of the infringement, its risks for health and the environment and Greece’s repeated failings in waste management.

Judgment of 9 October 2025, Commission v Greece (Enforcement of the judgment on the Zakynthos landfill) (C‑368/24)

A journalist at The New York Times asked the European Commission for access to the messages exchanged by President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, believing that those messages had been used in the negotiations on the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. The Commission rejected the request, stating that it did not hold those messages. However, the General Court found that the explanations provided were vague and changing, and that the Commission had not clearly stated where and how it had searched for those documents, nor whether the messages had been deleted or lost. In addition, the journalist had provided credible evidence showing that such exchanges had very likely taken place. The General Court found that an EU institution cannot simply state that it does not possess documents without providing solid evidence, especially in the case of public decisions of such importance. It therefore annulled the Commission decision refusing access to the documents.

Judgment of 14 May 2025, Stevi and The New York Times v Commission (T‑36/23)