(AGENPARL) – Thu 08 January 2026 Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd 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
Week III: 12th to 16th January
Thursday 15th January
Judgment in Case C-77/24 Wunner
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Law
governing the institutions)
An Austrian resident who was a customer of the Maltese gambling provider Titanium
Brace Marketing, now insolvent, brought proceedings against the latter’s two
managers before the Austrian courts in order to obtain reimbursement of his losses
incurred while participating in online casino games.
Titanium held a gambling licence in Malta but did not have a licence in Austria.
The customer therefore argues that the gambling contract is null and void. Under
Newsletter.
Austrian law, the two managers are personally and jointly liable for the fact that
Titanium offered illegal gambling in Austria.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
The two managers contest the international jurisdiction of the Austrian courts. In their
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
view, both the place of the causal event and the place of the damage are in Malta. The
applicable substantive law is not Austrian law, but Maltese law, which does not
recognise the liability of corporate bodies towards the company’s creditors.
The Austrian Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-77/24
There will be a press release for this case.
All times are 9:30
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd January 2026
(CET) unless
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Thursday 15th January
Judgment in Case C-45/24 Verein für Konsumenteninformation (Commission
charged by an intermediary)
(Transport – Compensation and assistance to passengers)
Several travellers purchased tickets on the Opodo travel agency booking portal for a
KLM return flight from Vienna (Austria) to Lima (Peru).
When the flights were cancelled, KLM refunded the amount they had paid, minus
approximately € 95 which Opodo had charged them as an intermediary commission.
The air passengers concerned assigned their potential rights to reimbursement to a
consumer protection association.
That association argued before the Austrian courts that the reimbursement of the cost
of the air tickets by the airline in question should include the intermediary commission
charged to the passengers, as in this case, by a travel agency acting as an intermediary
for that airline.
KLM, on the other hand, argues that it is not obliged to reimburse the disputed
intermediary commission, since it was unaware of its existence, let alone its amount.
The Austrian Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling.
More specifically, that court points out that the Court has already ruled on
intermediary commissions in the context of interpreting the scope of air passengers’
right to reimbursement, considering that such commissions must be included in the
amount of the reimbursement unless they were set without the airline’s knowledge.
However, this exception, relating to whether or not the air carrier was aware of the
commission, could be interpreted in different ways.
Background Documents C-45/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd January 2026
Thursday 15th January
Judgment in Case C-129/24 Coillte Cuideachta Ghníomhaíochta Ainmnithe
(Environment)
Coillte Cuideachta Ghníomhaíochta Ainmnithe (“Coillte”) is a commercial forestry
company partly owned by the Irish State. Between March 10, 2022 and June 7, 2022,
Coillte received 130 requests for access to environmental information – 97 of which
were from anonymous applicants or applicants using pseudonyms generally inspired
by film characters, and were presented in an identical or almost identical format,
without a physical address being provided.
The content of these requests was very similar, leading the company to consider them
manifestly abusive and to ask the “applicants” to confirm their identity. Having
received no response, Coillte rejected these requests as invalid and refused internal
reviews. A total of 81 rejection decisions were thus challenged before the
Environmental Information Commissioner, who, after examining the first 58 cases,
concluded that Coillte was not justified in considering the requests invalid under Irish
national rules.
The Irish court hearing the case asked the Court of Justice to interpret the directive on
public access to environmental information and, in particular, the right to submit
requests for access to information anonymously.
Background Documents C-129/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 15th January
Opinion in Case C-560/24 Besthame
(Citizenship of the Union)
R.S., born in a non-EU country, entered Ireland in 2002 on a student residence permit.
In 2010, 16 days before that residence permit expired, R.S. married a citizen of the
European Union who had exercised her right to move and reside in Ireland. He was
subsequently issued with a five-year residence card as a family member of a Union
citizen.
In 2015, R.S. acquired Irish citizenship. Since then, his residence in Ireland has been
based on that citizenship. In 2018, R.S. and his wife divorced. In 2019, a non-EUcountry national applied for residence in Ireland on the grounds that she was the
Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd January 2026
mother of a child, an Irish citizen, of whom R.S. was the biological father.
That application gave rise to an investigation to determine whether the marriage
contracted in 2010 was a marriage of convenience.
By a decision of December 18, 2019, the Minister for Justice “revoked” the residence
permit issued in 2010 on the grounds that R.S. had submitted misleading documents
in support of his application for a residence permit and that the marriage contracted
in 2010 had been a marriage of convenience. The Minister for Justice adopted a new
decision following correspondence with R.S.’s solicitors, finding again that R.S. had
produced false or misleading documents or information and entered into a marriage
of convenience in order to obtain a status or right to which he would not otherwise
have been entitled under Directive 2004/38/EC.
R.S. brought an action before the High Court (Ireland) for the annulment (certiorari) of
the three Minister for Justice’s decisions: as an Irish citizen, R.S. would no longer be
subject to any provision of the 2015 Regulation or Directive 2004/38, which could not
therefore empower the Minister for Justice to take those decisions. That application
was dismissed by the High Court in a judgment of May 18, 2023.
R.S. then appealed to the Court of Appeal, the court of referral. The legal question
raised by this preliminary ruling is as follows: may the competent authorities of a
Member State-investigate and, where appropriate, determine or conclude that a
person who has in the past enjoyed a derived right of residence as a family member of
a Union citizen under Directive 2004/38/EC has committed an abuse of rights or fraud,
even where that person has in the meantime acquired the nationality of that Member
State and their residence in that Member State is therefore no longer based on that
Directive?
Advocate General Norkus presents today his Opinion.
Background Documents C-560/24
While the opinion will be uploaded on the CVRIA website following delivery, you
may request to receive a copy directly that will be sent once the opinion is read
Thursday 15th January
Judgment in Case C-724/24 Havvitt
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Borders, asylum and immigration – Border checks)
The request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) concerns the
interpretation of Article 15(1) of Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the
Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd January 2026
reception of applicants for international protection.
The request has been made in proceedings between LK, a Georgian national applicant
for international protection, and the Irish authorities: International Protection Appeals
Tribunal, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General concerning the
legality of the decision rejecting his application for access to the labour market on the
grounds that the delay in adopting a first instance decision on his application for
international protection was attributable to him.
Background Documents C-724/24
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.
Week IV: 19th to 23th January
Thursday 22 nd January
Judgment in Case C-554/24 P Poland v Commission (Retroactive cancellation of
provisional measures)
(Law governing the institutions)
Considering that the expansion and extension of lignite mining activities in the Polish
mine in Turów, located near the borders of the Czech Republic and Germany, violated
EU law, the Czech Republic brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations against
Poland before the Court of Justice.
On May 21, 2021, at the request of the Czech Republic, the Vice-President of the Court
ordered Poland to immediately cease mining until the judgment ending the dispute is
delivered (C-121/21 R, see also Press release Nr. 89/21).
As Poland did not comply with this order, the Vice-President, at the request of the
Czech Republic, ordered Poland to pay the European Commission a daily penalty
payment of € 500,000. This measure was intended to ensure compliance with the
order of May 21, 2021 and to prevent Poland from delaying its implementation.
On February 3, 2022, the Czech Republic and Poland reached an amicable settlement
(C-121/21, see also Press release Nr. 23/22). As a result, the Court removed the case
from its register and the daily penalty payments ceased to run from February 4, 2022.
According to Poland, this friendly settlement had retroactively cancelled the penalties
imposed. The Commission did not share this view. As Poland had not paid the
Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd January 2026
penalties despite the formal notice, the Commission informed it that it would offset
the amount due on 3 February 2022 against that Member State’s claims on the Union
budget. The amount recovered in this way was € 68.5 million.
Poland then brought two actions before the General Court of the European Union
seeking annulment of five Commission compensation decisions. On May 29, 2024, the
General Court dismissed them as unfounded (T-200/22 and T-314/22, see also Press
release Nr. 87/24).
Poland then lodged an appeal with the Court, seeking the annulment of the General
Court’s judgment and the contested Commission decisions.
Background Documents C-554/24 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 22 nd January
Judgment in Case C-144/24 Commission v Hungary (Additional mining royalty)
(Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment)
By the present action for failure to fulfil obligations brought against Hungary, the
European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by adopting, during 2021,
national rules on the payment of an additional mining fee and on the minimum
extraction volume of certain mineral resources, Hungary has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 49 TFEU, enshrining the freedom of establishment, on the
ground that those rules restrict the possibility, for persons and undertakings
established in another Member State, of starting up or pursuing in Hungary an activity
covered by those rules, and Article 5(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535, in that Hungary
failed to notify the draft laws to the Commission as required by that article.
Background Documents C-144/24
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Wednesday 14th January 2026: 09:00 Case C-160/24 P JPMorgan Chase and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, National Association v Commission and Case C-191/24 P Crédit agricole
and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission (Competition)
Newsletter
Weeks III – IV 2026: 12th – 23rd January 2026
Thursday 15th January 2026: 09:30 Case C-36/25 Energia Group and Others (Energy –
Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union)
Wednesday 21st January 2026: 09:30 Case C-157/25 Jas Forwarding Worldwide
(Belgium) (Commercial policy)
Thursday 22nd January 2026: 09:30 Case C-23/25 Sutuska (Consumer protection)
Thursday 22nd January 2026: 09:30 Case C-205/25 Bayerisches Landesamt für
Datenschutzaufsicht (Principles of Union law – Protection of personal data)
General Court
Thursday 15th January 2026: 09:30 Case T-455/24 Advanz Pharma v Commission (Public
health)
Thursday 15th January 2026: 09:30 Case T-194/25 Scrap-Transporteur (Taxation)
Monday 19th January 2026: 14:30 – Case T-588/24 OT v Council (Restrictive measures Ukraine)
Tuesday 20th January 2026: 09:30 Case T-600/24 Konov v Council (Restrictive measures Ukraine)
Tuesday 20th January 2026: 09:30 Case T-682/24 Red Bull and Others v Commission
(Competition)
Wednesday 21st January 2026: 09:30 Case T-460/24 Gagarina v Council (Restrictive
measures – Ukraine)
Thursday 22nd January 2026: 09:30 Case T-268/21 RENV Ryanair v Commission (Italy;
aid scheme; COVID-19) and Case T-538/24 Ryanair v Commission (State aid)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.