(AGENPARL) – gio 06 febbraio 2025 Newsletter
Weeks VII – VIII: 10th to 21st February 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week VII: 10th to 14th February
Thursday 13th February
Judgment in Case C-472/23 Lexitor
(Consumer protection)
Lexitor is a debt collection company to which a consumer has assigned their rights
under a credit agreement concluded with the bank. This company claims before a
Polish court the payment of a sum of money corresponding to the interest and costs
paid by this consumer.
In support of its claim, Lexitor asserts that the bank failed in its duty to inform the
Niamh
consumer when the contract was concluded.
Leneghan
assisted in the
preparation of
this Newsletter.
Firstly, the annual percentage rate of charge (TAEG: total cost of the loan, paid by the
consumer, expressed as an annual percentage of the granted loan’s amount) would be
overestimated, because one of the clauses in the contract used to calculate this rate
should be declared unfair and, as a result, not binding on the consumer.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Secondly, the contract would not clearly specify the reasons for and the procedures
Twitter)
shortcomings should trigger the penalty provided for by national law and,
Download our
for increasing the costs associated with its performance. In Lexitor’s view, these
consequently, render the credit free of interest and charges set out in the contract.
Wishing to know whether the bank had breached its obligation to provide information
under EU law, specifically Directive 2008/48/EC, and whether depriving it of its right to
interest and costs was compatible with the Directive, the Polish judge turned to the
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling reference.
Background Documents C-472/23
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks VII – VIII: 10th to 21st February 2025
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
Thursday 13th February
Opinion in Case C-417/23 Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling
Schackenborgvænge
(Social policy)
for details of
other cases.
The Danish legislation on public housing distinguishes between several types of
neighbourhoods with unfavourable socio-economic situations in terms of their levels
of unemployment, crime, education, and income.
The areas in which, in addition to an unfavourable social-economic situations, the
proportion of immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants has
exceeded 50% for the last five years are categorised as ‘transformation areas’
(formerly known as ‘hard ghettos’).
The law requires the public housing associations owning such areas to draw up a
development plan in which it is set out how the proportion of public housing units in
the transformation areas is to be reduced to 40% by January 1, 2030. This may include
the sale of properties to private developers, demolition, or conversion of family
housing into housing for young people. In such cases, the lease of the previous
tenants must be terminated.
Tenants who found themselves in such a situation in two transformations areas – the
Schackenborgvænge estate in Slagelse, and Mjølnerparken estate in Copenhagen –
challenge in court the legality of development plans adopted on the basis of the
Danish legislation on public housing.
The Eastern Regional Court, Denmark harbours doubts as to whether the Danish
legislation is compatible with the Race Equality Directive.
Background Documents C-417/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 13th February
Opinion in Case C-743/24 Alchaster II
(Charter of Fundamental Rights – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial
cooperation in criminal matters)
For the second time within half a year, the referring court addresses itself to the Court
in the same case at issue at the national level: the Irish authorities are unsure as to
whether a person alleged to have committed a series of offences can be surrendered
Newsletter
Weeks VII – VIII: 10th to 21st February 2025
to the United Kingdom (UK) under the relevant provisions of the TCA.
The request for a preliminary ruling was originally been in proceedings relating to the
execution, in Ireland, of four arrest warrants issued by the District Judge of the
Magistrates’ Courts of Northern Ireland (UK) against MA on the basis of the Trade and
Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic
Energy Community (TCA), of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, of the other part.
The TCA regulates their relations after Brexit provides, inter alia, for judicial
cooperation in criminal matters based on a mechanism of surrender pursuant to an
arrest warrant.
The present request has been made in the context of the same dispute in the main
proceedings as that which gave rise to the judgment of 29 July 2024, Alchaster (C202/24) and it concerns the interpretation of Article 49(1) of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
A district judge of the Magistrates’ Courts of Northern Ireland (UK) issued four arrest
warrants against a person suspected of having committed terrorist offences. In his
appeal to the Supreme Court of Ireland, the interested party claimed that his
surrender would be incompatible with the principle that offences and penalties must
be defined by law, because of an unfavourable change to the rules on release on
licence adopted by the UK after the suspected commission of the offences in question.
The Supreme Court of Ireland states that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
has already concluded that those rules are compatible with the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and that, in that
context, the Supreme Court of Ireland has already rejected the argument of the
interested party concerning a risk of violation of the ECHR.
In its first reply the Court had invited the referring court to examine whether the
change in probation conditions constituted a risk before executing an arrest warrant.
By its second reference, the Supreme court now seeks, to ascertain whether the
Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘heavier penalty’
contained in that provision covers the situation of an amended parole regime as exists
in this case.
Background Documents C-743/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks VII – VIII: 10th to 21st February 2025
Week VIII: 17th to 21th February
The Court will be in recess from the 17th to the 21st February inclusive.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Monday 10th February 2025: 14:30 – Case C-797/23 Meta Platforms Ireland (Fair
Compensation) (State Aid – Fundamental Rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights) (streamed
on Curia)
Tuesday 11th February 2025: 09:00 – Case C-696/23 P Pumpyanskiy v Council, Case C704/23 P Khudaverdyan v Council, Case C-711/23 P Rashnikov v Council, Case C-35/24
P Mazepin v Council, Case C-111/24 P Khan v Council (Restrictive Measures – Ukraine)
(streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 12th February 2025: 09:30 – Case C-428/23 ROGON and Others (Competition
– Prohibition of cartels, decisions and concerted practices – Football)
Wednesday 12th February 2025: 09:30 – Case C-315/24 Nestlé Sverige (Labelling of
foods for special medical purposes) (Approximation of laws – Food safety)
Wednesday 12th February 2025: 14:30 – Case C-209/23 RRC Sports (Freedom to provide
services – Competition)
Thursday 13th February 2025: 09:30 – Case C-115/24 Österreichische
Zahnärztekammer (Public health – Freedom to provide services)
Thursday 13th February 2025: 14:30 – Case C-133/24 CD Tondela and Others
(Competition – Football)
General Court
Thursday 13th February 2025: 09:30 – Case T-412/22 PAN Europe v Commission, Case
T-94/23 Pollinis France v Commission, T-565/23 Aurelia Stiftung v Commission
(Agriculture and Fisheries – Plant health legislation)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.
Newsletter
Weeks VII – VIII: 10th to 21st February 2025