Nine Hungarian villages that received an EU co-financed grant face a claim arising from an irregularity: they did not take the required measures against conflicts of interest when awarding the contract, although the contract itself broke no procurement rule. The Pécs Regional Court asks when the four-year limitation period starts, and when a 2014-2020 project counts as a 'multiannual programme' that is 'definitively terminated'.
Hungary obliges retailers of household goods with a turnover above HUF 1 billion to cap their margins on certain products at their earlier average, and at most 15%, and to keep those products in stock. Rossmann was fined. The Kúria asks whether the Services Directive and freedom of establishment allow such a scheme, and whether a refunded fine must carry interest.
A Ukrainian company is suing the Russian Federation in Latvia and wants a foreign judgment enforced against funds frozen under the EU's Russia sanctions. The Riga Regional Court asks whether a court may authorise their release, whether the public-interest exception covers compensation for war crimes or aggression, and how State immunity and public policy fit in.
A Czech customs dispute over suspected imports of Chinese-origin goods turns on two OLAF missions to Taiwan, in 2013 and 2014. The Czech Supreme Administrative Court asks whether OLAF had a legal basis to investigate there, whether its reports are valid, and how much they can prove when their content cannot be verified.
An Albanian company holding a large Albanian judgment against Enel has spent years trying to enforce it in courts outside Albania. The Rome Court of Appeal asks whether a Member State court's decision declaring a third-State judgment enforceable is itself a 'judgment' that the Brussels I Regulation lets circulate across the Union.
Italian law refuses to execute a European arrest warrant if the requested person's mental state makes them permanently unable to take part in proceedings with full awareness. That ground appears nowhere in the Framework Decision. The Milan Court of Appeal asks whether recital 12 and Article 1(3) allow it anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the statutory default interest on a late commercial payment works out at less than one cent — and Finnish rounding rules turn it into zero — is the creditor still owed anything under the Late Payment Directive? The Finnish Supreme Court asks.
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 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 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 4 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:336) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the…
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…
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 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…
By judgment of 21 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:998) the Court held that during the five-year grace period after registration the proprietor of an EU trade mark may rely on Article 9(1)(b) against a similar sign for identical or similar goods without…
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 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…
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…
On 14 June 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:456) that the operators of The Pirate Bay themselves make a communication to the public by indexing and managing torrents of protected works, despite the content sitting on users' machines.
On 7 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:528) that the operator of a physical marketplace which sublets pitches to traders selling counterfeits is an "intermediary" under Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive, and injunctions against it are subject…
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 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…
On 28 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:612) that in a collective injunction action the law applicable to assessing contract terms is determined by the Rome I Regulation even though the action itself falls under Rome II.
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 →
On 17 March 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:173) that a rightholder claiming damages on the hypothetical-royalty basis of Article 13(1)(b) of the Enforcement Directive may additionally claim compensation for moral prejudice — the licence-fee measure…
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…
By judgment of 19 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:779) the Court held that a dynamic IP address registered by a website operator is personal data where the operator has legal means to have the visitor identified via the access provider.
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 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…
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…
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…