(AGENPARL) - Roma, 4 Dicembre 2025 - (AGENPARL) – Thu 04 December 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 8th – 19th 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 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).
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
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.
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.
All times are 9:30
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 8th – 19th December 2025
(CET) unless
Background Documents T-1129/23
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 10th December
for details of
other cases.
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.
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)
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 8th – 19th December 2025
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.
Week XLIX: 15th to 19th December
Wednesday 17th December
General Court
Judgment in Joined Cases T-620/23 to T-1023/23 Barón Crespo v Parliament, ZZ v
Parliament
(Law governing the institutions)
A number of former MEPs (over 400) separately brought an action against the
European Parliament challenging a “payment notice” the Parliament had issued under
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 8th – 19th December 2025
the rules of the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme for Members.
The core dispute is that the former MEPs claim that the payment demand or the
calculation of pension contributions (or benefits) under that scheme was incorrect meaning, that in their view, the pension-scheme amendment or its application
resulted in an unfair or unlawful financial demand. The MEPs asked for the annulment
of the payment notice.
Background Documents T-620/23
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-679/23 P WS and Others v Frontex (Joint return operation)
(Law governing the institutions)
In 2016, several Syrian refugees arrived on the Greek island of Milos. They expressed
their wish to apply for international protection. However, following a joint return
operation carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and
Greece, they were transferred to Turkey. From there, they travelled to Iraq.
Their complaints to the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer about their return to
Turkey were unsuccessful, so these refugees brought a claim for compensation before
the Court of Justice of the European Union. They are claiming more than €96,000 in
material damages and €40,000 in moral damages for Frontex’s alleged unlawful
conduct before, during and after the return operation.
According to them, if Frontex had not violated its obligations to protect fundamental
rights in the context of the return operation, they would not have been illegally
returned to Turkey and would have obtained the international protection to which
they were entitled, given their nationality and the situation in Syria at the time of the
events. In particular, Frontex allegedly violated the principle of non-refoulement, the
right to asylum, the prohibition of collective expulsions, the rights of the child, the
prohibition of degrading treatment, the right to good administration and the right to
an effective remedy.
The General Court had dismissed the action brought by that family (T-600/21—see
also press release No. 133/23) on the basis that there was no causal link between
Frontex’s allegedly unlawful conduct and the damage suffered, without assessing the
other conditions for liability. It ruled that, since Frontex has no competence either to
assess the merits of return decisions or to examine applications for international
protection, it could not be held liable for any damage linked to the return of that
family to Turkey.
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 8th – 19th December 2025
Background Documents C-679/23 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-136/24 P Hamoudi v Frontex
(Law governing the institutions – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy)
Mr Alaa Hamoudi, a Syrian national, claimed that he had been the victim of a collective
expulsion on April 28 and 29, 2020. He alleged that 22 people, including himself,
arrived on the island of Samos in Greece on 28 April in order to apply for asylum, and
that on the same day the local police confiscated their phones and took them to the
beach, from where they were sent back out to sea.
The following day, a Turkish coastguard vessel picked him up and transferred him to
Turkey. According to him, while he was at sea, a private surveillance aircraft operating
for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) flew over the scene
several times.
In proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, Mr Hamoudi asked
that Frontex be ordered to pay him a total of €500,000 in compensation for the nonmaterial damage he claims to have suffered as a result of the collective expulsion.
After assessing the evidence he produced, the General Court dismissed his action as
being manifestly unfounded, on the ground that Mr Hamoudi had not shown that the
damage he alleged was real (case T-136/22, see also press release No 188/23).
He has lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-136/24 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-422/24 Storstockholms Lokaltrafik
(Principles of Union law- Protection of personal data)
The case arises because a public-transport company uses body-worn cameras on