Preliminary references are EU law's early-warning system: every reference is a dispute a national judge could not resolve alone. EU Law Radar reports them as they are lodged — the questions quoted verbatim — and follows each case through to judgment.
A judge in Erfurt hearing a GDPR claim against Meta alone wants to refer questions to Luxembourg. German procedure says a single judge who meets a question of principle must hand the case to the three-judge chamber — which may then decline to refer. The judge asks whether Article 267 tolerates a rule that lets a court's own colleagues stand between it and the Court.
In its Facebook investigations the Commission demanded every document held by named executives that matched broad search terms, over years, whatever it contained. The General Court found that 'necessary'. Meta's two appeals ask whether necessity is tested term by term or in the round, and what protects the personal information swept up. The Advocate General has proposed dismissing both.
Investigating the Vivendi/Lagardère merger, the Commission ordered Lagardère to collect its employees' personal phones and messages and hand over what matched. The General Court upheld the order in June. The appeal raises the protection of journalistic sources, private life, and the question of who may be made to conduct the search.
In April the Court held that a lender may not charge interest on the fees it has financed. A Warsaw court now asks what that means in practice: which of the Consumer Credit Directive's information duties such a contract breaches, whether the national sanction must follow, and whether a court must raise the point of its own motion.
Brussels taxes parking spaces, but exempts buildings used for a public service of general interest owned by Belgium's own regions and communities. Baden-Württemberg, which owns such a building in the city, is taxed. Its appeal asks whether the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality protects the subdivisions of another Member State.
A Belgian user is suing Apple over loot boxes in games sold through the App Store. Belgium treats loot boxes as gambling; the E-Commerce Directive excludes gambling from its scope, and its hosting safe harbour protects only a provider that does not control what it hosts. The Antwerp court asks whether Apple can shelter behind Article 14 for apps it reviews and approves.
The European Data Protection Board issued an opinion on 'consent or pay' models that every national regulator will apply to Meta. Meta tried to annul it and claim damages; the General Court threw the case out as inadmissible without a hearing. The appeal asks whether a document that binds no one in law but everyone in practice can be taken to court.
A Dutch foundation is suing four Amazon companies for GDPR damages on behalf of everyone affected, without any of them having asked it to. The Rechtbank Rotterdam asks whether Article 80 of the GDPR — which lets a data subject 'mandate' a body to act — leaves room for the Dutch opt-out class action, and for the extra conditions Dutch law imposes on who may bring it.
The Dutch competition authority fined Samsung for steering retailers' television prices. Samsung says a vertical restriction can only be 'by object' if it harms competition between brands, not just between its own dealers. The Netherlands' highest administrative court asks the Court of Justice whether intra-brand harm is enough.
Intel's €1.06 billion fine of 2009 was annulled in 2022 on the rebates; what survived were the 'naked restrictions' — payments to HP, Acer and Lenovo to delay or drop AMD-based products. The Commission re-fined those at €376 million in 2023, the General Court cut it to €237 million in December 2025, and Intel now appeals what is left.