(AGENPARL) - Roma, 23 Febbraio 2026 - (AGENPARL) – Mon 23 February 2026 Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Contact us
@ENDesk
Week IX: 23rd to 27th February
Jacques René
Thursday 26 th February
Zammit
Press Officer
Judgment in Case C-92/23 Commission v Hungary (Right to provide media
services in a radio frequency)
Monica Pizzo
(Approximation of laws – Competition)
Assistant
Desk Email
Nadia Carmela
Di Proietto
assisted in the
preparation of this
Newsletter.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Klubrádió is a Hungarian commercial radio station that has been broadcasting on
radio frequencies since 1999. In 2014, it signed a contract with Médiatanács (the
Media Council) to use the 92.9 MHz frequency in the Budapest broadcasting area. The
contract was concluded for a period of seven years, with the possibility of renewal for
a period of five years.
Upon expiry of the contract, Médiatanács refused to renew it, considering that
Klubrádió had twice failed to comply with the obligation to provide monthly
information on broadcasting quotas, which constituted a repeated infringement.
Under Hungarian media law, such a breach automatically results in the refusal of
renewal.
Twitter)
Subsequently, Médiatanács published a new call for tenders for the provision of media
services on the frequency concerned, but Klubrádió’s application was declared invalid.
This decision was justified by errors in the programming schedule and by Klubrádió’s
negative equity in the five years prior to the submission of its application, which would
render its bid unsuitable for ensuring the presence on the media market of a radio
station that is stable and predictable in terms of its operation.
All times are 9:30
otherwise stated.
Arguing that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations, in particular under the EU
regulatory framework for electronic communications – especially Directive 2002/21/EC
Don’t forget to
and Directive (EU) 2018/1972, the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination,
good administration and loyal cooperation, as well as under the freedom of
(CET) unless
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
expression and information enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil
obligations before the Court of Justice.
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Background Documents C-92/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26 th February
Judgment in Case C-131/24 VIRUS
(Environment)
Several environmental associations are challenging the authorisation to build a 1.69kilometre dual carriageway east of St. Pölten (known as the “Spange Wörth” project)
before the Austrian Federal Administrative Court.
The associations believe that this project contravenes the Birds Directive, which aims
to protect all species of birds living in the wild within the European territory of
Member States.
On the one hand, the nesting grounds of the skylark, grey partridge and corncrake are
located within the perimeter of the works. On the other hand, the noise caused by
future traffic would also disturb many other species of forest birds in the vicinity, in
particular the middle spotted woodpecker.
The Federal Administrative Court asked the Court of Justice to clarify the scope of the
prohibition, laid down in the directive, on intentionally disturbing bird species
significantly. It notes that the project in question provides for various measures to
limit the impact on wild bird populations present on or near the site.
Background Documents C-131/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26 th February
Judgments in 13 Air Freight cases
(Competition)
In a series of thirteen judgements, the Court will consider the appeals lodged by
several airlines involved in the ‘air freight cartel’ against the rulings of the General
Court on their applications to annul the decision by which the European Commission
imposed fines on them for participating in this cartel (see summary of the Decision).
Background Documents C-367/22 P
Background Documents C-369/22 P
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Background Documents C-370/22 P
Background Documents C-375/22 P
Background Documents C-378/22 P
Background Documents C-379/22 P
Background Documents C-380/22 P
Background Documents C-381/22 P
Background Documents C-382/22 P
Background Documents C-385/22 P
Background Documents C-386/22 P
Background Documents C-401/22 P
Background Documents C-403/22 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26 th February
Opinion in Case C-802/24 Reibel
(Common foreign and security policy – General and final provisions)
In 2015, a Belgian company entered into a contract with a Russian company for the
sale and delivery of goods, for which the Russian buyer paid an advance.
The Belgian authorities subsequently refused to grant an export licence due to the
restrictive measures imposed by the European Union on Russia.
As a result, the goods were never delivered and the advance payment made by the
Russian company was not refunded.
After the contract was terminated, the dispute was referred to an arbitral tribunal. In
2021, the tribunal ordered the Belgian company to refund the advance payment, plus
interest. A Swedish court, hearing an appeal to set aside this arbitral award, referred
the matter to the Court of Justice.
It noted that the regulation on restrictive measures against Russia prohibits, among
other things, granting any claim by a Russian person, entity or body relating to a
contract whose performance has been affected by those measures. It wishes to know
whether this prohibition extends to preventing recourse to arbitration, and whether
an award upholding such a claim is contrary to public policy in the European Union,
which would lead to its annulment.
Background Documents C-802/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Thursday 26 th February
Opinion in Cases C-496/23 P Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Facebook
Marketplace) and C-497/23 P Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission (Facebook
Data)
(Competition)
Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd has lodged two appeals against judgments of the General
Court of the European Union confirming the legality of decisions by which the
European Commission had requested it to provide internal documents identified by
means of combinations of electronic search terms.
Those requests were made in the context of an investigation into abuse of a dominant
position, relating in particular to the use of data (Facebook Data) and the Facebook
Marketplace service.
The disputes originate from two Commission decisions adopted in 2020, in which the
Commission, on the basis of the Regulation 1/2003 establishing the procedural
framework for applying EU antitrust rules, requested the disclosure of internal
documents held by certain company officials covering several years.
Following summary proceedings (Orders T-451/20 R and T-452/20 R), the Commission
adopted amending decisions incorporating a virtual data room procedure to regulate
access to certain documents containing sensitive personal data.
In two judgments of 24 May 2023 (T-451/20 – see press release No 83/23, and T452/20), the General Court dismissed Meta Platforms Ireland’s appeals, ruling in
particular that the requests for information were sufficiently reasoned, necessary and
proportionate, and that they complied with the right to privacy and the principle of
good administration.
Advocate General Biondi presents today his Opinions.
Background Documents C-496/23 P
Background Documents C-497/23 P
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 26 th February
Opinion in Case C-876/24 Vueling Airlines (Competent jurisdiction in the case of a
national air transport online contract)
(Transport)
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
The request for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute between
I.G.V., a consumer, and the airline Vueling Airlines, S.A. (‘Vueling’) concerning an action
for compensation for damage suffered by I.G.V. as a result of the loss of her luggage
during a flight.
I.G.V. purchased airline tickets from Vueling, a company established in Viladecans
(Barcelona, Spain), for a flight from Madrid (Spain) to Barcelona (Spain). She made this
purchase via the internet from her home in Fuenlabrada (Madrid, Spain). She also
booked an additional service consisting of checking in her luggage at Madrid airport.
Barcelona was not I.G.V.’s final destination, but that she had also booked a second
flight from Barcelona to Rome (Italy). However, the referring court states that no
further information has been provided concerning the booking of that second flight.
During the journey in question, I.G.V.’s luggage was lost and she was unable to
retrieve it on arrival at Barcelona airport. Unable to wait at the airport for long, she
then took her connecting flight to Rome.
Subsequently, I.G.V. brought an action before the referring court (the court of her
place of residence, Court of First Instance No 1 of Fuenlabrada, Spain) against Vueling
for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the loss of her luggage.
She provided documentary evidence of the expenses she had incurred in replacing the
contents of her luggage.
Having doubts as to its jurisdiction to hear the case, the referring court decided to stay
proceedings and refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling as concerning
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in
respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage and the ‘Montreal
Convention’.
Background Documents C-876/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Week X: 2nd to 6th March
Wednesday 4th March
General Court
Judgment in Case T-656/24 European Air Charter
(Transport)
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Two air passengers are claiming compensation of €400 each from European Air
Charter due to a delay of more than three hours on their flight from Düsseldorf
(Germany) to Varna (Bulgaria).
The Düsseldorf Regional Court is faced with the question of whether the airline can
invoke an exemption from the obligation to pay compensation for delay on a
subsequent flight in a flight rotation due to extraordinary circumstances affecting a
previous flight.
Following an exceptionally long wait at security control at Cologne-Bonn Airport, due
to an overload of work for the staff carrying out the control operations, all the
passengers on a flight preceding the flight at issue in the main proceedings arrived
late for boarding. European Air Charter then decided to wait for those passengers,
which led to a delay in the departure of that flight of more than five hours. In addition,
European Air Charter decided to reorganise the subsequent flights, including the flight
at issue in the main proceedings, on a replacement aircraft.
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf wonders whether this independent decision by
European Air Charter means that the airline cannot rely on the extraordinary
circumstance that occurred on the previous flight.
The question was therefore referred to the General Court, now competent for
preliminary rulings in specific subject matters after the reform, for interpretation of
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which establishes common rules on compensation and
assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, or in the event of a flight
being cancelled or delayed for a long time.
Background Documents T-656/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 5 th March
Judgment in Case C-151/24 Luevi
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Fundamental Rights)
An Albanian national, holder of a two-year residence permit for family reasons also
allowing her to work in Italy, applied for social assistance benefits from the Italian
State.
However, the INPS (National Social Security Institute) rejected the application on the
grounds that the applicant did not have a long-term resident’s EU residence permit,
which is required by Italian law for third-country nationals.
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
In the context of the appeal against this decision, the Court of Cassation (Italy) referred
the matter to the Constitutional Court, considering that this rule could be in conflict
with the Italian Constitution and EU law.
The doubt raised concerns, in particular, compliance with the principle of equal
treatment between citizens of a Member State and third-country nationals, according
to Directive 2011/98/EU, a principle that applies to measures coordinating social
security systems within the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004).
The Constitutional Court then referred a question to the Court of Justice of the
European Union for a preliminary ruling on whether EU law allows a Member State to
make the granting of social assistance benefits to third-country nationals conditional
on the possession of a long-term residence permit.
Background Documents C-151/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 5 th March
Judgment in Case C-458/24 Daara
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)
At the end of 2022, Italy notified the other Member States that, on a temporary basis
and subject to exceptions, it would no longer accept transfers of applicants for
international protection under the Dublin III Regulation. It would therefore refuse to
take charge of applicants falling under its responsibility.
A German court asked the Court of Justice about the consequences that this refusal
might have on the distribution of responsibility for examining applications for
international protection, as provided for in the Dublin III Regulation. It must decide
whether, despite Italy’s refusal, Germany could reject an asylum application from a
Syrian national as inadmissible and order his removal to Italy on the grounds that Italy
was responsible for examining that application.
The German court wonders, in particular, whether Italy’s refusal has the effect of
making Germany responsible for examining.
Background Documents C-458/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Thursday 5 th March
Judgment in Case C-150/24 Aroja
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)
A Moroccan national who entered Finland illegally in September 2022, despite being
subject to a ban on entry into the Schengen area, was detained four times by the
authorities of that Member State with a view to his removal to his country of origin.
The legality of one of these periods of detention, from September 11, 2023 to January
18, 2024, is being examined by the Finnish courts, since at that stage the initial
maximum period of six months provided for in the Return Directive may have been
exceeded, taking into account previous periods of detention.
Referred to as a last resort, the Supreme Court of Finland asked the Court of Justice
about the calculation of the maximum period of detention and the judicial review due
to its exceeding that period.
Background Documents C-150/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 5 th March
Judgment in Case C-613/24 Commission v Portugal (Special conservation areas –
Non execution of a Court judgment)
(Environment)
In this second infringement procedure, the Commission questioned Portugal
regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment delivered in case C290/18, Commission v Portugal, in which the Court of Justice declared that that Member
State failed to fulfil its obligations under the Habitat Directive on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
Portugal informed the Commission that it had created all 61 sites of community
importance at issue in that judgment.
Taking the view that that measure was not sufficient to comply fully with the judgment
in question, on December 2, 2021, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to
Portugal.
Since Portugal persisted in not designating, with the required precision, the 61 special
areas of conservation at issue in that judgment and in not establishing the necessary
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
conservation measures for those areas, the Commission decided, on February 7, 2024,
to refer the matter to the Court of Justice, by bringing the present action for failure to
fulfil obligations.
Background Documents C-613/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 5 th March
Opinion in Case C-70/25 Tukowiecka
(Free movement of capital – Freedom of movement for persons – Internal market Principles)
A customer of a Polish bank was the victim of phishing fraud: a third party posed as a
buyer on a sales platform and sent her a fraudulent link imitating her bank’s website.
Deceived, she entered her login details, which allowed the fraudster to retrieve them
and make an unauthorised payment from her bank account.
The next day, the customer reported the fraudulent transaction to her bank. However,
the bank refused to refund the amount of the unauthorised transaction, arguing that
the customer had been grossly negligent in disclosing her bank details.
Following this refusal, the customer took legal action. The national court referred the
matter to the Court of Justice to ask whether, under EU law (Directive (EU) 2015/2366),
the bank, as a payment service provider, is obliged to immediately refund an
unauthorised transaction, even if it considers that the customer has been seriously
negligent, or whether it can refuse to refund on those grounds.
Background Documents C-70/25
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Wednesday 25th February 2026: 09:30 Case C-203/25 Neo Group (Approximation of laws
– Taxation)
Wednesday 25th February 2026: 09:30 Case C-230/25 Stakov (Area of Freedom, Security
and Justice – Fundamental Rights)
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
Thursday 26th February 2026: 09:30 Case C-142/25 Pepach and Case C-143/25
Stanpach (Social Security for Migrant Workers – Freedom of Movement for Persons – Nondiscrimination and Citizenship of the Union)
Monday 2nd March 2026: 14:30 Case C-670/24 P Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Pacific)
and Others v Commission (State aid – Competition)
Wednesday 4th March 2026: 09:00 Case C-631/24 P Commission v Auken and Others
and Case C-632/24 P Commission v Courtois and Others (Principles of Union law)
Wednesday 4th March 2026: 09:30 Case C-332/25 Friends of the Irish Environment
(Food Vision 2030) (Environment)
General Court
Tuesday 24th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-449/24 Dryade and Others v Commission
(Environment)
Wednesday 25th February 2026: 09:30 Cases T-255/25 Telefónica Germany v EUIPO ePlus (e plus), T-256/25 Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (E-PLUS GRUPPE), T257/25 Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (e plus), and T-258/25
Telefónica Germany v EUIPO – ePlus (e.plus+) (Intellectual, industrial and commercial
property)
Wednesday 25th February 2026: 14:30 Case T-356/25 Rapera (Taxation)
Thursday 26th February 2026: 09:30 Case T-535/24 Russian Maritime Register of
Shipping v Council (Restrictive measures – Ukraine – Common foreign and security policy)
Monday 2nd March 2026: 15:00 Case T-286/25 Gutseriev v Council (Restrictive measures –
Belarus – Common foreign and security policy)
Wednesday 4th March 2026: 09:30 Case T-258/24 Scandlines Danmark and Others v
Commission (Competition)
Thursday 5th March 2026: 09:30 Case T-8/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data
Protection Board (Law governing the institutions – Principles of Union law)
Thursday 5th March 2026: 09:30 Case T-151/24 End the Cage Age v Commission (Law
governing the institutions – Principles of Union law)
Friday 6th March 2026: 09:00 Case T-457/24 Hungary v Council and European Peace
Facility Committee (Common foreign and security policy)
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X 2026: 23rd February – 6th March 2026
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.