(AGENPARL) – Thu 29 January 2026 Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2nd– 13th February 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.
Week VI: 2nd to 6th February
Thursday 5th February
Judgment in Joined Cases C-364/24 and C-393/24 Fidenato
(Agriculture – Environment – Free movement of goods – Fundamental rights – Public Health)
These cases concern the situation of an Italian farmer who had cultivated genetically
modified maize plants which are prohibited in Italy, according to Commission Decision
(EU) 2016/321 Implementing Directive 2001/18/EC.
In these joined preliminary-reference proceedings referred by the Consiglio di Stato
and the Tribunale di Udine (Italy), national courts asked the Court of Justice to assess
the validity of certain provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment.
Specifically, the questions concern certain articles of the Directive and their
compatibility with EU law as the basis for Italy’s national bans on the cultivation of
Follow
@EUCourtPress
genetically modified maize MON 810. The Italian courts sought clarification on
on X (formerly
Italy—are capable of providing a lawful basis for restrictions on GMO cultivation.
Twitter)
whether those EU provisions—and, by extension, the measures implementing them in
Background Documents C-364/24
Background Documents C-393/24
There will be a press release for this case.
All times are 9:30
(CET) unless
Thursday 5th February
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
Judgment in Case C-572/23 P Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament
(Lifting of parliamentary immunity)
(Law governing the institutions – Privileges and immunities)
other cases.
Following the referendum on self-determination held in Catalonia (Spain) on October
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
1, 2017, the Spanish Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Spanish State Attorney and the
VOX political party brought criminal proceedings against several individuals, including
Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (then President of the Generalitat of Catalonia), Antoni
Comín i Oliveres and Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (members of the autonomous government
of Catalonia at the time).
In March 2018, the Spanish Supreme Court charged Mr. Puigdemont, Mr. Comín and
Ms. Ponsatí with alleged offences of rebellion and misappropriation of public funds. As
the accused had left Spain, the criminal proceedings were suspended until they could
be found. The Spanish Supreme Court therefore issued arrest warrants for them so
that they could be tried.
As Mr Puigdemont, Mr Comín and Ms Ponsatí were elected in the European
Parliament elections held in Spain on May 26, 2019, the Spanish Supreme Court asked
the Parliament to waive the parliamentary immunity of the three Members, which the
Parliament did by decisions of March 9, 2021 (order C-629/21 P(R)).
The 3 mentioned Members of Parliament asked the General Court of the European
Union to annul those decisions. By judgment of July 5, 2023, the General Court
dismissed their action against the Parliament’s decisions (T-272/21 – see also Press
release No 114/23).
Mr. Puigdemont, Mr. Comín and Ms. Ponsatí challenged that judgment before the
Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-572/23 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Week VII: 9th to 13th February
Tuesday 10th February
Judgment in Case C-97/23 P Whatsapp Ireland v EDPB
(Law governing the institutions – Principles of Union law)
This procedure originated in a dispute that arose in 2021 between the Data Protection
Commission (Ireland’s data protection authority) and several supervisory authorities
from other Member States concerning WhatsApp Ireland Ltd’s (WhatsApp) compliance
with the transparency and information obligations imposed by the GDPR.
In January 2021, eight supervisory authorities raised objections to the proposed
decision of the Data Protection Commission, which acted as the lead supervisory
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
authority. After proposing compromise solutions, the Data Protection Commission
referred the matter to the EDPS for a ruling on the points at issue. On July 28, 2021,
the EDPS adopted a binding decision on all the supervisory authorities concerned, in
which it ruled on the issues that, in its view, were the subject of relevant and reasoned
objections from some of those authorities.
After receiving that decision, the Data Protection Commission adopted a final decision
on August 20, 2021, in which it found, inter alia, that WhatsApp had infringed certain
provisions of the GDPR and imposed corrective measures and administrative fines
totalling €225 million.
WhatsApp challenged the final decision of the Irish supervisory authority before an
Irish court and, at the same time, asked the General Court to annul the EDPS’s
decision.
Thus, by order of 7 December 2022 (T-709/21 – see also Press release No 196/22), the
General Court ruled for the first time on a request for annulment of a binding decision
of the EDPS, adopted on the basis of the GDPR.
It dismissed WhatsApp’s appeal as inadmissible on the grounds that it was not
directed against a challengeable act and that WhatsApp was not directly affected by
the EDPS’s decision. According to the General Court, the Committee’s decision was
only an interim measure and WhatsApp could only challenge the final decision of the
Data Protection Commission before a national court. WhatsApp then appealed to the
Court against the General Court’s order.
Background Documents C-97/23 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 11th February
General Court
Judgment in Case T-1181/23 Mylan Ireland v Commission
(Public Health)
The applicant, Mylan Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), a pharmaceutical company that
develops and markets various medicines, including generic medicines, asked the
General Court to annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 8920 final of
December 13, 2023 repealing Decision C (2022) 3252 final which was authorising the
placing on the market of the medicinal product for human use Dimethyl Fumarate
Mylan – dimethyl fumarate under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
The case is connected to case T-1182/23 Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission
and T-1183/23 Zakłady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma v Commission.
Background Documents T-1181/23
The opinion will be uploaded on the CVRIA website following delivery, however
you may request to receive a copy directly that will be sent once the opinion is
read out.
Thursday 12th February
Judgment in Case C-48/24 Vilniaus tarptautiné mokykla
(Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom to provide services)
A private international school has been operating in Vilnius (Lithuania) since 2004. It
has obtained the necessary administrative authorisations to provide primary and
intermediate education programmes in English.
In 2022, the national language inspectorate carried out an inspection of the school to
verify compliance with the requirements of the Official Language Act. It found that
some of the school’s employees, including the headmistress, had not passed the
Lithuanian language exam.
However, according to national law, all teaching and administrative staff in regular
contact with the public and administrative authorities are required to have a
command of the Lithuanian language. To prove that they have the required level,
these persons must produce a certificate issued by the National Education Agency,
based on language tests organised on Lithuanian territory.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, hearing the case at last resort,
decided to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the
compatibility of the Lithuanian legislation with EU law.
Background Documents C-48/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12th February
Judgment in Case C-471/24 PKO BP (Critical benchmark)
(Approximation of laws – Consumer protection)
In 2019, a Polish consumer entered into a 20-year mortgage agreement with the bank,
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
borrowing the equivalent of approximately €100,000. The interest rate on this loan
was variable and calculated on the basis of the WIBOR 6M reference index, to which
the bank added a fixed margin. At the time the agreement was signed, almost all
mortgage loans in Poland were variable-rate loans based on the WIBOR reference
index.
WIBOR is part of a regulatory framework established at EU level to ensure the
accuracy, robustness and integrity of benchmarks used in financial markets and the
process of determining them. In addition, the European Commission has included
WIBOR on a list of critical benchmarks to which additional requirements apply.
The consumer claims before a national court that the contractual clause relating to
this interest rate is unfair and therefore not binding on him. He criticises the bank for
failing to explain in a reliable, comprehensive and comprehensible manner how
WIBOR 6M is calculated, what factors influence its value, and what role banks play in
setting this index. Without this information, the consumer was unable to understand
the economic consequences of the contract and bore the entire risk associated with
the variation in the rate.
The Polish court referred the matter to the Court of Justice to know whether the
Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts applied to the disputed clause and, if
so, whether it complied with the requirements of that directive. He also asked
whether, due to a lack of information on certain specific features of the WIBOR
reference index, the clause in question should be considered unfair.
Background Documents C-471/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12th February
Opinion in Case C-225/24 Parliament v Commission
(Law governing the institutions)
Under the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), EU countries can only receive funding
if they fulfil the conditions set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.
In 2022, the Commission approved ten operational programmes financed under the
CPR funds in Hungary, but suspended the disbursement of payments until the country
had fulfilled the requirements of the Charter. The Commission identified four major
deficiencies concerning the judicial independence, academic freedom, the so-called
‘child protection law’, and the right to asylum. The decisions outlined the detailed
conditions that Hungary must meet in order to address the non-fulfilment of the
Charter.
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
On December 13, 2023, the Commission adopted a decision (Commission
Implementing Decision C(2023) 9014) by which it concluded that Hungary satisfied the
Charter requirements in relation to judicial independence and lifted the suspension on
the disbursement of funds for related programmes. Based on this decision, Hungary
became eligible to receive approximately € 10.2 billion from various EU funds
governed by the CPR.
The European Parliament brought an action before the Court of Justice requesting the
annulment of the Commission’s decision. It alleged that the Commission infringed
several CPR rules and committed a manifest error of assessment, infringed its duty to
state reasons, and misused its powers.
Advocate General Ćapeta will deliver her Opinion today.
Background Documents C-225/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12th February
Opinion in Case C-829/24 Commission v Hungary (Protection against foreign
political interference)
(Principles of Community law – Principles of Union law)
The European Commission brought an infringement action against Hungary on
December 4, 2024, challenging a Hungarian law (the Law on the Defence of National
Sovereignty) that empowers a national authority to investigate and sanction
organisations receiving foreign funding on the ground that their activities could
influence public life and electoral outcomes, with potential criminal sanctions for
persons linked to those organisations.
Hungary does not dispute that the law aims to protect national sovereignty but
contests the Commission’s claim that it has damaging consequences for fundamental
rights (inscribed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and EU law, inter alia, the
Directive on electronic commerce, the Services Directive, the GDPR.
Background Documents C-829/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12th February
Opinion in Case C-857/24 daa and Others
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
(Environment – Transport)
This dispute before the High Court of Ireland arises out of how scarce take-off and
landing slots at Dublin Airport are allocated. The case was brought by daa plc, which
operates Dublin Airport, against the Irish Aviation Authority and Airport Coordination
Limited, the body responsible for independently assigning airport slots.
Under EU law, congested airports must have slots allocated by an independent
coordinator according to uniform EU rules, rather than by the airport operator itself.
The disagreement centres on whether certain decisions taken in Ireland about slot
allocation, capacity assessment, and the respective roles of the airport operator, the
regulator and the coordinator comply with those EU rules.
In practical terms, daa argues that the way the system is being applied affects how
airport capacity is calculated and how slots are distributed to airlines, with significant
commercial and operational consequences for the airport.
The High Court has asked the Court of Justice to clarify how the relevant EU legislation
on airport slots should be interpreted, in particular the degree of independence
required of the slot coordinator and how far national authorities or airport operators
may influence capacity declarations and slot allocation. Essentially, the EU question is
about who really gets to decide “how many flights can operate and who gets the time
slots” at a busy airport, and whether Ireland’s arrangements respect the EU
requirement that this process be neutral, transparent and insulated from commercial
or political pressure.
Background Documents C-857/24
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Wednesday 4th February 2026: 09:30 Case C-154/25 Commission v France (Nitrate in
drinking water) (Public health)
Wednesday 4th February 2026: 09:30 Case C-906/24 Sirto (Non-discrimination and
Citizenship of the Union – Freedom of movement of persons – Freedom to provide services)
Monday 9th February 2026: 14:30 Case C-41/25 Orsay (Area of Freedom, Security and
Justice) (streamed on the Curia website)
Tuesday 10th February 2026: 09:30 Case C-241/25 Société générale (Tax refund at
Newsletter
Weeks VI – VII 2026: 2th – 13rd February 2026
source) (Free movement of capital) (streamed on the Curia website)
General Court
Monday 2nd February 2026: 09:30 Case T-268/25 Sampension Livsforsikring (Taxation)
Wednesday 4th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-459/24 Trotsenko v Council (Restrictive
measures – Ukraine)
Wednesday 4th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-430/23 ABLV Bank v SRB (Principles of Union
Thursday 5th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-324/24 UniCredit v ECB (Economic and
monetary policy)
Friday 6th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-676/24 Iran Air v Council (Common foreign and
security policy)
Tuesday 10th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-492/24 Beloglazov v Council (Restrictive
measures – Ukraine)
Tuesday 10th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-77/24 Dassault Aviation v Commission
(Environment)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.