(AGENPARL) – Thu 11 December 2025 Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
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
Week LI: 15th to 19th December
Wednesday 17th December
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
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.
Twitter)
Download our
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
All times are 9:30
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
Turkey were unsuccessful, so these refugees brought a claim for compensation before
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
(CET) unless
the Court of Justice of the European Union. They are claiming more than €96,000 in
otherwise stated.
material damages and €40,000 in moral damages for Frontex’s alleged unlawful
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
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.
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.
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
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
ticket inspectors, which record images and sound of passengers. The national privacy
authority in Sweden found that the company did not properly inform travellers, whose
data is captured, at the moment of capture, and concluded that the company violated
the information obligations under GDPR.
The question before the Court is essentially whether when personal data are collected
by means of devices such as body-worn cameras worn by public-transport staff, does
the information required by GDPR fall under Article 13 (data collected directly from the
data subject) or Article 14 (data obtained indirectly from other sources)?
In effect, the case tests whether passengers must be informed immediately – at the
time of recording – or whether the standard information requirement (applied when
data are collected from “third-party sources”) can apply instead.
The answer will determine how far and how strictly GDPR’s transparency obligations
apply in the context of surveillance by body cameras on public transport.
Background Documents C-422/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-184/24 Sidi Bouzid
(Area of freedom, security and justice – Borders, asylum and immigration – Border checks)
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
The dispute concerns national legislation in Italy allowing authorities to withdraw
reception-conditions for asylum seekers (such as housing, financial support, and other
basic reception measures) when certain conditions are no longer met – in particular
when the asylum-seeker refuses, without justification, to accept a transfer to another
designated accommodation centre.
An asylum-seeker had refused a transfer to another centre designated by the
administrative authorities for organisational reasons. As a result, the national
authorities withdrew his reception measures.
The case raises the question whether that withdrawal is compatible with Directive
2013/33/EU (on reception conditions for applicants for international protection),
namely whether withdrawing reception conditions – even after a reasoned individual
assessment – is allowed when the person’s basic needs (food, shelter, dignity) may
then no longer be guaranteed.
Background Documents C-184/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-417/23 Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling
Schackenborgvænge
(Principles of Union law – Fundamental rights)
In Denmark a law classifies certain public-housing neighbourhoods as “transformation
areas” (formerly “hard ghettos”) if, among other socioeconomic criteria, over 50% of
the residents are “immigrants and their descendants from non-Western countries.”
Under that law, public-housing landlords must prepare a development plan to reduce
the share of social family housing in such areas — for example by selling, demolishing,
or converting existing housing, which may lead to termination of leases and eviction of
current tenants.
Several tenants challenged those evictions (and the underlying law) before Danish
courts, arguing that the legislation discriminates on the basis of “ethnic origin.”
The Danish court referred the matter to the Court, asking whether the term “ethnic
origin” in the relevant EU anti-discrimination directive should be interpreted to cover
the group defined by “immigrants and their descendants from non-Western
countries,” and if so whether the law constitutes direct or indirect discrimination
under EU law, namely Council Directive 2000/43/EC.
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
Background Documents C-417/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-448/23 Commission v Poland (Ultra vires review of the Court
law – Primacy of Union law)
(Law governing the institutions)
The case arises because the Polish Constitutional Tribunal issued judgments (in 2021)
declaring that certain elements of EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of
the European Union are incompatible with the Polish Constitution, and that EU law
cannot have primacy over the Constitution in certain areas. In particular, the Tribunal
considered that interim measures imposed by the CJEU violated Poland’s
constitutional identity and that some EU-law provisions as interpreted by the CJEU
undermined national constitutional sovereignty.
In response, the European Commission initiated infringement proceedings against
Poland, claiming that these judgments breach Poland’s obligations under EU law —
notably the requirements that national courts must provide an independent and
impartial tribunal, and that EU law must enjoy primacy, effectiveness and uniform
application throughout all Member States.
The Commission thus asks the Court to declare that Poland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Treaties.
Background Documents C-448/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-366/24 Amazon EU (Minimum book delivery rates)
(Freedom of movement of persons)
The case arises after France adopted a law requiring that home-delivery of books be
subject to a minimum delivery charge (a fixed fee), even when the books themselves
are subject to fixed retail-price rules under the national “book price law.” Amazon EU
challenges that rule: it argues the minimum delivery fee makes it harder for online
sellers established in other EU Member States to deliver books into France, and
therefore amounts to a discriminatory or protectionist restriction.
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
France defends the measure as part of a cultural policy intended to protect and
promote bookshops and literary/book-selling diversity. The referring court (the Conseil
d’État of France) asked the Court whether such national legislation is compatible with
EU internal-market law – notably the freedom to provide services and the free
movement of goods.
Background Documents C-366/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 18th December
Opinion in Joined Cases C-424/24 FIGC and CONI and C-425/24 FIGC and CONI
(Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices)
These cases concern ZD and MI, former president and former director of Juventus F.C.
(a professional football club), who were sanctioned by the FIGC (Italian Football
Federation) for having taken part in a system of fictitious capital gains designed to
improve the club’s accounts.
After an initial acquittal, the sporting disciplinary procedure was reopened on the
basis of material transmitted by the Italian criminal prosecutor. A ban on carrying out
any activity in Italian football for two years was then imposed by the FIGC’s federal
court of appeal, and this ban was extended worldwide by the international federation
(FIFA). The Sports Guarantee Board attached to CONI, the supreme body of sports
justice, subsequently confirmed the decision.
The individuals concerned challenged these sanctions before the Italian administrative
court, which is the referring court. That court explains that, according to the
interpretation of national legislation, it is required to declare inadmissible any action
seeking to annul or suspend a sporting disciplinary sanction. It may only award
financial compensation, without being able to examine fully the legality of the
sanctions.
The Italian court therefore questions whether this system is compatible with EU law,
particularly with regard to the right to effective judicial protection, the requirement of
legality and clarity in disciplinary offences, as well as the freedoms of movement and
competition.
Background Documents C-424/24
Background Documents C-425/24
There will be a press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
Thursday 18th December
Judgment in Case C-731/23 P Nicoventures Trading e.a. v Commission
(Public health)
The case concerns a challenge by several tobacco-product companies (including
Nicoventures Trading Ltd and subsidiaries of British American Tobacco) to a regulatory
measure at EU level. They sought to annul a delegated act, namely Directive
2022/2100 – which amended Directive 2014/40/EU – that withdrew certain exemptions
for “heated tobacco products with characterising flavours.”
Under the amended directive, those products (heated tobacco with flavours) would
face an absolute ban on marketing, meaning the companies could no longer sell them
under previous authorisations or declarations.
The companies challenged the delegated directive under Article 263 TFEU, arguing
they were directly affected because they held authorisations, or had made
declarations/notifications, to market heated tobacco products — so the ban would hit
them immediately and severely.
However, the General Court of the European Union dismissed their action as
inadmissible (T-706/22): it found that although they were directly concerned, they
were not “individually concerned” because the measure applied generally to all
operators in the market, and their authorisations did not confer exclusive or acquired
rights distinguishing them from any other operator.
By their appeal, the companies ask the Court to set aside that inadmissibility decision contending that the General Court misapplied the “individual concern” requirement
under the long-standing test from Plaumann v Commission.
Background Documents C-731/23 P
While the judgment will be uploaded on the CVRIA website following delivery,
you may request to receive a copy directly that will be sent once the judgment is
delivered.
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026
Week LII-I: 22nd to 2nd January
The Court is in Christmas recess until Sunday 04th January 2026.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Wednesday 17th December 2025: 09:30 Case C-482/24 P Global 8 Airlines v
Commission (Common foreign and security policy)
Wednesday 17th December 2025: 09:30 Case C-762/24 P Conserve Italia and Conserves
France v Commission (Competition)
General Court
Monday 15th December 2025: 09:30 – Case T-239/24 Belaz-upravljajusaja kompanija
holdinga Belaz Holding v Council and Case T-240/24 MAZ-upravljajusaja kompanija
holdinga Belavtomaz v Council (Restrictive measures – Belarus)
Wednesday 17th December 2025: 09:30 Case T-198/25 G Kft. (Taxation – VAT)
Thursday 18th December 2025: 09:30 Case T-185/24 Novis v Commission (Principles of
Union law – Access to documents)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.
Newsletter
Weeks LI 2025 – I 2026: 15th December 2025 – 2nd January 2026