(AGENPARL) – Thu 13 November 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Nadia Carmela
Di Proietto
assisted in the
preparation of this
Newsletter.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
Week XLVII: 17th to 21st November
Wednesday 19th November
General Court
Judgments in Cases T-412/22 PAN Europe v Commission, T-94/23 Pollinis France v
Commission and T-565/23 Aurelia Stiftung v Commission
(Agriculture)
Under EU law (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009), the placing on the market of plant
protection products requires, among other things, that the active substance they
contain be approved by the European Commission. This approval is granted, in
principle, for a period not exceeding 10 years and may be renewed for a maximum
period of 15 years. The Commission may also temporarily extend the approval of
active substances where it appears that the approval will expire before a renewal
decision is adopted.
Following the adoption by the European Commission of implementing regulations
extending the approval period for three active substances used in plant protection
products – boscalid, dimoxystrobin and glyphosate – three non-profit environmental
associations separately requested the Commission to conduct an internal review of
these regulations.
The application submitted by Pollinis France concerned the extension of the approval
period for boscalid (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/708), that of PAN
Europe concerned dimoxystrobin (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2021/2068), and that of Aurelia Stiftung concerned glyphosate (Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2364).
When the Commission refused, those organisations brought proceedings before the
All times are 9:30
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of the decisions rejecting
their requests for internal review.
Background Documents T-412/22
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
(CET) unless
Background Documents T-94/23
otherwise stated.
Background Documents T-565/23
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
There will be one press release for these cases.
Wednesday 19th November
other cases.
General Court
Judgment in Case T-367/23 Amazon EU v Commission
(Regulation of digital services)
The Digital Services Act (DSA) entrusts the European Commission with the task of
supervising providers of certain services, designated as very large platforms or very
large online search engines, once they exceed a significant minimum threshold of
users in the European Union.
Amazon EU Sàrl, which operates the Amazon Store platform accessible in several
Member States of the Union, has requested the annulment of the decision by which
the European Commission designated this platform as a ‘very large online platform’
under the DSA.
Amazon is challenging the legality of the provision in the DSA that subjects certain
online marketplaces to specific obligations of transparency, cooperation and data
access. According to Amazon, this provision infringes several fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including
freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the principle of equality before
the law, freedom of expression and information, and the right to privacy and the
protection of confidential information.
Background Documents T-367/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 20th November
Judgment in Case C-57/23 Policejní presidium (Retention of biometric and
genetic data)
(Principles of Union law – Protection of personal data)
The request for a preliminary ruling was made in proceedings between the applicant,
JH, and the Police Headquarters, Czech Republic, concerning a request by JH for a
declaration that the carrying out of identification procedures, the storage of samples
Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
and information obtained during those procedures and the subsequent recording of
the data thus obtained in the police information system constituted an unlawful
infringement of his rights.
JH was the subject of criminal proceedings for breach of trust. In the course of those
proceedings, on January 13, 2016, the police took his fingerprints and a buccal swab,
from which they created a DNA profile, and they also took photographs and drew up a
description of JH, which were included in their relevant databases. On March 8, 2016,
JH brought an action before the Municipal Court, Prague, Czech Republic) seeking a
declaration that the police had infringed his rights by their above-mentioned actions.
In its decision of June 23, 2022, the Municipal Court in Prague upheld the appeal,
finding that the police actions of January 13, 2016 were unlawful, and ordered the
deletion of all personal data relating to JH stored in the police databases. The
collection of genetic material constituted a significant interference, in particular with
the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in
Rome on 4 November 1950.
However, the applicable national legislation did not provide sufficient legislative
guidance to assess the proportionality of such interference. Consequently, the
Municipal Court in Prague assessed the proportionality of the interference with JH’s
rights and concluded that the collection of identification data was disproportionate,
since the police had not demonstrated what objective should have been achieved by
the implementation and storage of the identification documents.
The Police Headquarters lodged an appeal against the decision of Prague Municipal
Court before the referring court, the Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic,
arguing that the purpose of the processing of personal data, namely the public
interest in preventing, investigate or detect criminal activity, is clearly expressed in the
relevant national legislation. The proportionality of the acts of January 13, 2016 had
been assessed by the police. With regard to the length of time for which personal data
are stored, the police have an internal mechanism for regularly reviewing the need to
store personal data.
The referring court asked the Court for guidance regarding the interpretation of
Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the
prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the
execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data.
Background Documents C-57/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
Thursday 20th November
Opinion in Case C-522/24 Ministero della Difesa (Compulsory vaccination for
military personnel)
(Charter of Fundamental Rights – Social policy)
In the main proceedings, BG, a member of the Italian military, challenged a national
measure whereby a decree-law (Decreto-legge n. 172/21) amending an earlier decreelaw introduced a compulsory vaccination requirement against COVID-19 for military
personnel. The Italian administration had not made vaccination mandatory under
Article 206a of Legislative Decree n. 66/10 and had assumed responsibility for effects
of the vaccine. BG argues that this differentiates the military from civilian workers,
who are not required to undergo such vaccination, even though they perform duties
with similar risks of transmission. The question centres on whether the military
vaccination obligation, tied to performing duties “in the same working environment” as
civilian workers, is compatible with EU non-discrimination and employment law.
In the context of the extraordinary appeal procedure, the Ministry of Defence sought
the opinion of the Council of State, Italy, as provided for in the relevant national
legislation. The latter decided to stay proceedings and refer questions to the Court for
a preliminary ruling.
Given that the administration did not impose a specific vaccination requirement for
the military under national law (Legislative Decree 66/10) while assuming
responsibility for vaccine effects, does Directive 2000/78/EC (on equal treatment in
employment and occupation) preclude the national measure (Decree-Law 172/21, as
amended) which imposes compulsory vaccination for a military member against his
personal convictions insofar as he must undergo a still-trial-phase medical treatment,
at his own risk, as additional prerequisite to work in the same working environment as
civilian employees not subject to vaccination, despite similar duties from the point of
view of contagiousness and person-to-person transmission?
Background Documents C-522/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 20th November
Judgment in Case C-204/24 Commission v Ireland (Water Framework Directive)
(Environment)
The European Commission asks the Court to hold that Ireland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Water Framework Directive, establishing a framework for the
Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and
groundwater. The overall objective is to achieve good environmental status for all
waters.
Two areas in particular continue to cause concern in Ireland, because of the central
role they play in ensuring the effectiveness of the Directive as a whole: 1) the
continued lack of clarity in Irish law in relation to whether cost recovery is
appropriately considered as a water management tool in respect of all water services,
and 2) insufficiency of controls over water abstraction and on hydromorphological
interventions that ensure that the impact on the ecological status of the water bodies
concerned is continuously monitored.
Background Documents C-204/24
While the judgment will be uploaded on the CVRIA website following delivery,
you may request to receive a copy directly (also following delivery).
Week XLVIII: 24th to 28th November
Tuesday 25th November
Judgment in Case C-713/23 Wojewoda Mazowiecki
(Citizenship of the Union)
In 2018, two Polish citizens, one of whom also has German nationality, got married in
Berlin. Wanting to travel to Poland and stay there as a married couple, they requested
that the marriage certificate issued in Germany be transcribed into the Polish civil
registry. This request was refused on the grounds that Polish law does not allow samesex marriage. Therefore, the transcription of the marriage certificate in question
would violate the fundamental principles enshrined in the Polish legal system.
The spouses challenged this refusal. The Polish Supreme Administrative Court, to
which the case was referred, asked the Court of Justice whether national legislation
which does not allow the recognition of same-sex marriages concluded in another
Member State or the transcription of such marriages in the civil register is compatible
with EU law.
Background Documents C-713/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
Tuesday 27th November
Judgment in Case C-137/24 P Heßler v Commission
(Staff Regulations of Officials)
European Union civil servants receive a monthly-dependent child allowance for each
of their dependent children. According to the Staff Regulation, the allowance is
granted automatically until the child’s 18th birthday. It is granted upon reasoned
request until the child’s 26th birthday if the child is in full-time education or vocational
training.
In addition, civil servants receive a tax allowance for each dependent child, according
to Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68. To this end, twice the amount of the
dependent child allowance is deducted from the taxable base.
A Commission official requested that the Commission extend this tax allowance for his
children, who were continuing their studies, beyond their 26th birthday. Considering
that entitlement to the tax allowance was linked to entitlement to dependent child
allowance, which ends at the latest on the child’s 26th birthday, the Commission
refused to grant such an extension.
The General Court of the European Union, where the civil servant challenged the
Commission’s decision, upheld this refusal (T-369/22). The civil servant then lodged an
appeal with the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-137/24 P
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Tuesday 18th November 2025: 09:00 – Case C-611/24 Upravitelen savet na Balgarska
narodna banka (Dismissal of a deputy governor) (Principles of Community law)
(streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 19th November 2025: 09:30 – Case C-773/24 A. bankas (Freedom to provide
services)
Wednesday 19th November 2025: 09:30 – Case C-876/24 Vueling Airlines (Competent
jurisdiction in the case of a national air transport online contract) (Transport)
Newsletter
Weeks XLVII – XLVIII: 17th – 28th November 2025
Thursday 20th November 2025: 09:30 – Case C-505/24 P Condor Flugdienst v Ryanair
(State aid)
Tuesday 25th November 2025: 09:00 – Case C-857/24 daa and Others (Transport)
Wednesday 26th November 2025: 09:00 – Cases C-496/23 P Meta Platforms Ireland v
Commission (Facebook Marketplace) and C-497/23 P Meta Platforms Ireland v
Commission (Facebook Data) (Competition)
Thursday 27th November 2025: 09:30 – Case C-809/24 Trenitalia (Transport)
General Court
Monday 17th November 2025: 09:30 – Case T-428/23 ABN AMRO Bank and ABN AMRO
Hypotheken Groep v SRB (Economic policy – Taxation)
Monday 17th November 2025: 14:30 – Joined Cases T-310/24 Úsovsko Agro v Commission
and T-311/24 Úsovsko Eko v Commission (Competition – State aid)
Tuesday 18th November 2025: 09:30 – Case T-259/25 Pumpyanskiy v Council
(Common foreign and security policy, restrictive measures)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.