(AGENPARL) – Thu 02 October 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XLI – XLII: 6th – 17th October 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
Week XLI: 6th to 10th October
Thursday 9th October
Judgment in Case C-368/24 Commission v Greece (Enforcing the judgment on
Zakynthos landfill)
(Environment)
In the 2014 the Court ruled (Judgment in Commission v Greece C-600/12 – see also
Press Release No 104/14) that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under two EU
directives on waste: Directive 2008/98/EC and Council Directive 1999/31/EC. Greece
had not put an end to the use of the landfill site in the Zakynthos Marine National
Park, which is home to the Caretta Caretta sea turtle.
After an exchange of correspondence (2014-2023) between the European Commission
and the Hellenic Republic concerning the actions and measures taken by Greece to
rehabilitate the landfill site and the environmental impact assessment of this
rehabilitation project to comply with the 2014 judgment, and a letter of formal notice
in 2017, the European Commission brought a new action for failure to fulfil obligations
before the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-368/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 9th October
Judgment in Case C-798/23 Abbottly
All times are 9:30
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Police
(CET) unless
cooperation)
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
In 2014, SH was convicted of two criminal offenses by Latvian courts, receiving a prison
sentence and a police supervision period. On October 27, 2015, these sentences were
combined into a total prison term of 4 years and 9 months, followed by 3 years of
police supervision. After serving his prison sentence, SH failed to comply with the
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XLI – XLII: 6th – 10th October 2025
for details of
other cases.
requirement to report to the police within three working days of release. He was
informed that non-compliance could lead to administrative sanctions. As a result, he
was fined twice by a Latvian court in May 2020.
Under Latvian law, if an individual is sanctioned twice in one year for breaching police
supervision conditions, the remaining supervision period may be converted into a
prison sentence at a fixed ratio (1 day of imprisonment for every 2 days of supervision
remaining). In June 2020, the Jēkabpils police requested the Zemgale District Court to
convert SH’s remaining police supervision into a prison sentence.
A summons was sent to SH’s official residence in June 2020, but it was not collected
and was returned in July 2020. On August 19, 2020, a court hearing was held in SH’s
absence. The court ruled that SH’s remaining police supervision period (2 years and 2
days) should be converted into 1 year and 1 day of imprisonment, following the fixed
ratio. The decision was sent to SH but was returned uncollected. SH did not appeal.
On February 26, 2021, a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued for SH to enforce
the prison sentence. On July 27, 2022, the Irish High Court refused to surrender SH
under the Irish transposition of Article 4a(1) of the Framework Decision 2002/584 on
the European Arrest Warrant. The Irish Minister for Justice sought to appeal this
refusal but was denied by the Court of Appeal. However, the Supreme Court granted
leave to appeal on January 19, 2023.
The Supreme Court considered whether the Latvian procedure for converting police
supervision into imprisonment was equivalent to revoking a suspended sentence,
which, under CJEU case law (Ardic case, C-571/17), does not fall under Article 4a(1)
unless it modifies the nature or length of the original sentence. The Supreme Court
noted that under Latvian law, the court had discretion only in deciding whether to
impose imprisonment but not over its duration, which was determined by a fixed legal
formula.
Initially, the court found that this was not a new sentence but rather an automatic
consequence of breaching supervision conditions. However, the court had doubts, as
the Latvian decision might have altered the original punishment by converting
supervision into imprisonment. The referring court highlighted that the Latvian court
had discretion in deciding whether to impose imprisonment, even if the duration was
fixed.
Due to these uncertainties, the Irish Supreme Court referred the case to the CJEU for
clarification on the interpretation of Article 4a(1).
Background Documents C-798/23
The judgment will be sent upon request
Week XLII: 13th to 17th October
Thursday 16th October
Judgment in Case C-218/24 Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España (notion of luggage)
Newsletter
Weeks XLI – XLII: 6th – 10th October 2025
(Transport)
On 22 October 2019, a passenger was travelling with her mother and her pet (a dog)
on a flight from Buenos Aires (Argentina) to Barcelona (Spain). The flight was operated
by Iberia. Due to its size and weight, the dog had to travel in the hold, in a transport
crate. At check-in, the passenger did not make any special declaration of interest in the
delivery of her luggage. The dog escaped while being transported to the aircraft and
could not be recovered.
The passenger claimed compensation for the moral damage suffered as a result of the
loss of her dog, in the amount of € 5,000. Iberia acknowledged its liability and the right
to compensation, but within the limits provided for checked baggage.
The Spanish court examining the claim for compensation referred the matter to the
Court of Justice to determine whether the concept of “baggage” within the meaning of
the Montreal Convention excludes pets travelling with passengers.
Background Documents C-218/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 16th October
Judgment in Case Arrêt C-399/24 AirHelp Germany (Aeroplane struck by
lightning)
(Transport)
Shortly before landing in Iași (Romania), an Austrian Airlines aircraft was struck by
lightning. Due to the mandatory safety inspections that followed, this aircraft was
unable to operate the next flight to Vienna (Austria) as planned.
A passenger who was supposed to take this flight arrived in Vienna on a replacement
flight with a delay of more than seven hours. He assigned the potential claim arising
from this delay to AirHelp, which is seeking compensation of € 400 from Austrian
Airlines before the Austrian courts.
Austrian Airlines considers that the lightning strike, followed by mandatory safety
inspections, constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. Furthermore, it claims to have
taken all reasonable measures to remedy the delay. Consequently, according to the
regulation on air passenger right (Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of
cancellation or long delay of flights), it was not required to pay compensation.
Newsletter
Weeks XLI – XLII: 6th – 10th October 2025
The Austrian court hearing the case referred the matter to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-399/24
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Monday 06th October 2025: 16:30 – Case C-788/24 Anne Frank Fonds (System of
property ownership – Copyright & Information society)
Tuesday 07th October 2025 09:30 – Case C-280/25 Lin II (Area of Freedom, Security and
Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Financial provisions – Own resources –
Fundamental rights)
Wednesday 08th October 2025: 09:00 – Case C-319/24 P Commission v Sinopec
Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others (Commercial policy)
Tuesday 14th October 2025 09:30 – Case C-225/24 Parliament v Commission (Law
governing the institutions) (streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 15th October 2025: 09:30 – Case C-560/24 Besthame (Citizenship of the
Union)
Wednesday 15th October 2025: 09:30 – Case C-820/24 Strominator Elektro (Freedom of
movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services)
General Court
Friday 10th October 2025: 09:30 – Case T-628/24 Lego v EUIPO – Guangdong Qman
Toys Industry (Building block for a construction game) (Intellectual, industrial and
commercial property – Trade marks)
Monday 13th October 2025: 09:30 – Case T-127/21 RENV Swissgrid v Commission
(Energy – Internal market – Principles)
Wednesday 15th October and 16th October 2025: 09:30 – Case T-691/14 RENV Servier
and Others v Commission (Competition)
Wednesday 15th October 2025: 09:30 – Case T-57/24 Coöperatieve Rabobank v
Commission (Euro-denominated bonds) (Competition)
Newsletter
Weeks XLI – XLII: 6th – 10th October 2025
Friday 17th October 2025: 09:30 – Case T-684/14 RENV KRKA v Commission
(Competition)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.