(AGENPARL) – Thu 27 November 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 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
Week XLIX: 1st to 5th December
Tuesday 2nd December
Judgment in Case C-34/24 Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App
Stores Claims
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters– Competition –
Dominant position)
Apple iPhones and iPads run on the iOS operating system, which comes pre-installed
on these devices. Applications for these devices can be purchased from the App Store,
an online sales platform managed by Apple and automatically installed on these
devices.
The App Store offers free and paid applications, which may vary from country to
country, and which are developed by Apple or by third parties (known as ‘developers’).
In order to sell their applications on the App Store, developers must enter into an
agreement with Apple. The sale price of these applications is determined on the basis
of a scale established by Apple. In addition, Apple retains, as the case may be, 15% or
30% of that price as commission.
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
To access the App Store, users of Apple devices must first create a profile. When a
user has an Apple ID indicating the Netherlands as their country or region and
accesses the App Store, they are automatically redirected to the “online store”
specifically designed for that country. Although users theoretically have the option of
changing the country associated with their profile, to do so they must accept new
terms and conditions and have a valid means of payment in that country.
Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores are foundations under
Dutch law whose purpose is to defend the interests of victims of unlawful conduct by
the Apple group.
They brought two representative actions before the Amsterdam District Court
(Netherlands) to defend the collective interests of a ‘strictly defined group’ comprising
All times are 9:30
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
unidentified but identifiable individuals, namely users, whether consumers or
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
(CET) unless
professionals, who had purchased applications created by developers on the App
otherwise stated.
Store NL. The applicants argue, in particular, that Apple is abusing its dominant
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
position in the market for the distribution of applications for its devices. This anticompetitive behaviour is alleged to have caused harm to users of these applications.
Apple contests the jurisdiction of the Dutch court to hear this case, as the alleged
harmful event did not occur in the Netherlands and, in particular, in Amsterdam. In
the alternative, Apple argues that the court can only have jurisdiction over claims
relating to users who made purchases in Amsterdam, in the App Store NL. The Dutch
court has decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice concerning the EU
Regulation on jurisdiction.
Background Documents C-34/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Tuesday 2nd December
Judgment in Case C-492/23 Russmedia Digital and Inform Media Press
(Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Consumer protection –
Protection of personal data)
Russmedia Digital, a company incorporated under Romanian law, is the owner of the
website http://www.publi24.ro. That site is an online marketplace on which advertisements
may be published free of charge or in return for payment. Those advertisements
relate, in particular, to the sale of goods or the provision of services in Romania.
On August 1, 2018, an unidentified person posted a message on the website stating
that a certain woman was offering sexual services. The message contained photos of
that woman, used without her consent, as well as her telephone number. The woman
considered the advertisement to be false and harmful and asked the website owner to
remove it. Russmedia Digital removed the advertisement less than an hour after
receiving the request. However, the same advertisement had already been posted on
other websites, where it remained accessible.
Faced with this situation, and considering that the advertisement violated her rights to
her image, honour and reputation, as well as her privacy, and the rules on the
processing of personal data, the victim took legal action.
The Cluj-Napoca Court of First Instance ruled in her favour. It ordered Russmedia to
pay her €7,000 in compensation for the moral damage caused to her by the
infringement of her image rights, honour and reputation, as well as by the violation of
her right to privacy and the unlawful processing of her personal data. However, on
appeal before the specialised court in Cluj, the company was exonerated from all
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
liability. That court considered that the company was merely a hosting provider, and
therefore a mere technical intermediary, and that it could not be held liable for the
content published by users of its platform.
The victim therefore appealed against that judgment before the Court of Appeal in
Cluj. That court decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European
Union for clarification on the interpretation of EU law, in particular on the limits of the
exemption from liability of an information society service provider, such as Russmedia,
under Directive 2000/31/EC.
Background Documents C-492/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 4th December
Judgment in Joined Cases C-580/23 Mio and Others and C-795/23 konektra
(Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide
services – Intellectual, industrial and commercial property)
The Swedish manufacturer Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund believes that dining
tables marketed by Swedish group Mio bear a strong resemblance to tables it
manufactures [ii] which, as works of applied art, are protected by copyright.
Swiss manufacturer USM U. Schärer Söhne accuses German online retailer konektra of
offering a furniture system that is identical to a modular furniture system that it
manufactures and which, as a work of applied art, is protected by copyright.
The Court of Appeal in Stockholm and the German Federal Court of Justice have asked
the Court of Justice to rule on the conditions under which a utilitarian object can
constitute a work of applied art and therefore benefit from copyright protection,
according to Directive 2001/29/EC.
Background Documents C-580/23
Background Documents C-795/23
There will be a press release for these cases.
Thursday 4th December
Opinion in Case C-528/24 Boothnesse
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters – Charter
of Fundamental Rights)
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
Three individuals, LQ, NT and RM, are the subject of arrest warrants issued by the
Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom – UK) for the purpose of prosecuting
them for alleged fraud. Before the Irish courts, they objected to surrender on the
ground that, in earlier proceedings before the Reading Crown Court (UK), they had
been sentenced in their absence to six months’ imprisonment for contempt of court
for failing to comply with restraint orders.
Under UK law, that contempt is classified as civil and was therefore not included in the
arrest warrants. The Supreme Court (Ireland) referred questions to the Court of Justice
concerning whether contempt of court of this kind may constitute an “offence” within
the meaning of Article 625(2) Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and
the UK (TCA), and whether surrender must be refused where there is a risk that the
persons concerned may be detained for such conduct after surrender.
Background Documents C-528/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XLX: 8th to 12th December
Wednesday 10th December
General Court
Judgment in Case T-1129/23 Intel Corporation v Commission
(Competition – Dominant position)
This case is a continuation of the dispute between Intel and the European Commission
regarding EU competition rules and stems from a Commission decision dating back to
2009. In that decision, the Commission found that Intel had abused its dominant
position in order to exclude its competitor AMD from the x86 microprocessor market
and imposed a fine of €1.06 billion on Intel.
That decision was partially annulled by the General Court of the European Union (T286/09 – see also Press release No 82/14), which was subsequently confirmed by the
Court of Justice (C-413/14 P – see also Press Release No 90/17). The Court of Justice set
aside that judgment and referred the case back to the General Court (T-286/09 RENV –
see also Press release No 16/22).
The General Court annulled a substantial part of the 2009 decision, finding that certain
conduct on which the penalty was based was not sufficiently substantiated, which led
to the partial annulment of the infringement and the amount of the fine.
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
The Court of Justice subsequently dismissed the appeal brought by the Commission
against that annulment (C-240/22 P – see also Press Release No 185/24).
On September 22, 2023, the Commission adopted a new decision, limiting itself to the
practices not annulled by the General Court, namely the restrictions imposed on HP,
Acer and Lenovo regarding the use of AMD processors.
It thus set a new fine of €376,358,000 against Intel. Intel is now seeking the total or
partial annulment of that decision and the cancellation or reduction of the fine, while
the Commission is seeking the dismissal of the action.
Background Documents T-1129/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 10th December
General Court
Judgment in Case T-458/22 Ryanair v Commission (TAP; restructuring assistance)
(State Aid)
Ryanair has asked the General Court of the European Union to annul a European
Commission decision approving a major state aid package for TAP, the Portuguese
airline group. The contested decision, adopted on 21 December 2021 (see
Commission’s press release), authorised Portugal to grant restructuring aid to TAP
worth €2.55 billion through a loan and a recapitalisation plan. Ryanair brought its
action under Article 263 TFEU, which allows EU courts to review the legality of
Commission decisions.
Portugal had first notified the Commission in June 2021 of its plan to support TAP
under the EU guidelines on rescuing and restructuring companies in difficulty. This
plan came after an earlier rescue loan of up to €1.2 billion granted in 2020 during the
COVID-19 pandemic. That earlier authorisation was annulled by the General Court in
May 2021 following a challenge by Ryanair, forcing the Commission to re-authorise the
rescue loan in July 2021 (T-465/20, see also Press release No 85/21).
Later in July 2021, the Commission opened a formal investigation because it initially
had doubts about whether Portugal’s restructuring plan respected all the conditions
laid down in the rescue and restructuring guidelines. Despite these concerns, the
Commission ultimately approved the measure in December 2021, considering it
compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.
Ryanair now argues that this approval should be annulled.
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
Background Documents T-458/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 11th December
Judgment in Case C-485/24 Locatrans
(Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)
A dispute arose between a driver, ES, and his former employer, Locatrans, a transport
company based in Luxembourg. ES had worked under a Luxembourg-law contract
since 2002, carrying out transport across several EU countries. In 2014, Locatrans
attempted to reduce his working hours and later informed him that most of his activity
over the previous 18 months had been carried out in France. The company registered
him with French social security, offered him a job in a French affiliate, and informed
him that he would no longer be employed by Locatrans after July 2014.
ES challenged the end of his employment before the labour court in Dijon, which
initially ruled in 2017 that Luxembourg law applied and that ES had effectively
resigned. On appeal, however, the Dijon Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It
held that under Article 6 of the Rome Convention, the choice of Luxembourg law could
not remove French mandatory protections when the worker habitually performed his
work in France. Based on social security affiliation and evidence that most of his duties
were carried out on French territory, the court applied French labour law, reclassified
the end of the contract as an unfair dismissal, and awarded compensation.
Locatrans appealed to the French Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal
failed to prove that France was the true habitual place of work over the entire
employment period, or that the parties intended France to be the stable place of
performance. The company claims that without such proof, French mandatory
employment rules should not override the contract’s choice of Luxembourg law. The
case has now led to a preliminary reference for clarification on how the Rome
Convention should apply to cross-border employment relationships.
Background Documents C-485/24
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Tuesday 2nd December 2025: 09:00 – Case C-555/24 P Medel and Others v Council
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
(Economic, social and territorial cohesion) (streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 3rd December 2025: 09:30 – Case C-716/24 Ponner (Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters)
Wednesday 3rd December 2025: 09:30 – Case C-51/25 Betaal Garant Nederland (Free
movement of capital – Internal market – Principles)
Wednesday 10th December 2025: 09:30 – Case C-14/24 P Commission v Bulgarian
Energy Holding and Others (Competition), Case C-660/24 Commission v Hungary (Time
limit for accessing a solicitor) and Case C-681/24 Commission v Czech Republic (Time
limit for accessing a solicitor) (Area of freedom, security and justice – judicial cooperation in
criminal matters)
Wednesday 10th December 2025: 09:30 Case C-11/25 Jelgavas valstspilsētas pašvaldība
(Competition)
Thursday 11th December 2025: 09:00 – Case C-559/23 P IMG v Commission and Case
C-790/24 P IMG v Commission (Law governing the institutions – Financial provisions – Own
resources)
Thursday 11th December 2025: 09:30 – Case C-531/24 An Taisce (Nitrates action
programme) and Case C-895/24 An Tiasce II (Nitrates action programme) (Environment Pollution)
General Court
Tuesday 2nd December 2025: 09:30 – Case T-603/24 Timchenko v Council and 14:30
Case T-602/24 Timchenko v Council (Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
Thursday 4th December 2025: 09:30 – Case T-522/20 RENV Carpatair v Commission
(State aid)
Friday 5th December 2025: 09:30 – Case T-24/25 Les Éditions Albert René v EUIPO Lubiński (Obelix) (Intellectual, industrial and commercial property – Trade marks)
Monday 8th December 2025: 14:30 – Case T-528/24 Chevtsov v Council (Restrictive
measures – Belarus)
Thursday 11th December 2025: 09:30 – Case T-133/25 Condor Flugdienst (Transport –
Compensation and assistance to passengers)
Thursday 11th December 2025: 09:30 – Case T-87/25 Westfälisches Textilwerk Adolf
Ahlers v Commission (Competition)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
Newsletter
Weeks XLIX – XLX: 1st – 12th December 2025
weeks.