(AGENPARL) – Thu 26 February 2026 Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd– 13th March 2026
Contact us
@ENDesk
Week X: 2nd to 6th March
Jacques René
Wednesday 4th March
Zammit
Press Officer
General Court
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Nadia Carmela
Di Proietto
assisted in the
preparation of this
Newsletter.
Judgment in Case T-656/24 European Air Charter
(Transport)
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.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
Following an exceptionally long wait at security control at Cologne-Bonn Airport, due
on X (formerly
Twitter)
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
to an overload of work for the staff carrying out the control operations, all the
at issue in the main proceedings, on a replacement aircraft.
All times are 9:30
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf wonders whether this independent decision by
(CET) unless
otherwise stated.
European Air Charter means that the airline cannot rely on the extraordinary
circumstance that occurred on the previous flight.
Don’t forget to
The question was therefore referred to the General Court, now competent for
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
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.
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
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.
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
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
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.
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)
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
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
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
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XI: 9th to 13th March
Thursday 12 th March
Judgment in Case C-465/24 SBK Art
(Common foreign and security policy)
In 2022, the European Union adopted restrictive measures against the Russian bank
Sberbank. This decision is part of the sanctions imposed on Russia for its war of
aggression in Ukraine (see Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270). As SBK Art is an
indirect subsidiary of Sberbank, its funds have also been frozen in accordance with EU
law, according to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in
respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and
independence of Ukraine.
STAK, a Dutch legal entity, holds and manages the shares of Fortenova Group TopCo.
In this capacity, STAK issues Fortenova TopCo share certificates and pays dividends to
the holders of these certificates. Among the holders of these certificates is SBK Art,
which holds 41.82% of them.
When the board of directors of STAK convened the holders of share certificates to a
general meeting of shareholders, scheduled for August 18, 2022 in Amsterdam
(Netherlands), it excluded holders subject to restrictive measures, including SBK Art.
On the day of the meeting, SBK Art nevertheless attempted to exercise the voting
rights attached to its share certificates both physically and electronically, but was
denied access to the meeting and to the electronic voting system. Due to a lack of
quorum, a new meeting was convened for August 30, 2022, with the same exclusion.
In the meantime, SBK Art filed an application for interim relief seeking an order
requiring STAK to admit, during the period until December 31, 2022, its participation in
any meeting and the exercise of the voting rights attached to its share certificates. By
judgment of September 6, 2022, the judge in summary proceedings at the Amsterdam
District Court, Netherlands, granted this application. As a result, a third meeting, which
had been convened for September 8, 2022, was cancelled.
However, on December 29, 2022, on appeal, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal
overturned the decision of the judge in summary proceedings and SBK Art appealed
against that decision to the Court of Cassation.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands, to which the dispute was referred, asked the
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
Court of Justice to interpret EU law in relation to the concept of ‘freezing of funds’.
Background Documents C-465/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12 th March
Judgment in Case C-84/24 EM System
(Common foreign and security policy – Free movement of capital – General and final
provisions)
On December 17, 2020, the Council of the European Union added Belarusian national
A.V.S. to the list of individuals subject to European Union sanctions against Belarus, as
set out in Annex I to Regulation No 765/2006.
The following day, two Lithuanian banks froze the assets of the Lithuanian company
EM SYSTEM on the grounds that 50% of the capital of that company is held by A.V.S.
EM SYSTEM brought an action before the Lithuanian courts seeking the lifting of the
freeze on its assets. When its appeal was dismissed, EM SYSTEM lodged an appeal with
the Supreme Court of Lithuania, which referred questions to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling on the possibility of freezing the funds of a legal person or entity
not included on the list.
Background Documents C-84/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12 th March
Judgment in Case C-43/24 Shipov
(Fundamental rights – Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union)
A Bulgarian national was registered at birth as of male sex, with a name, a personal
identification number and identity documents corresponding to that sex. She has
undergone hormone therapy and now presents herself as a woman. The discrepancy
between her feminine appearance and her official identity documents as a person of
the male sex causes problems she encounters on a daily basis, in particular looking for
a job.
She brought an action before the Bulgarian courts seeking recognition of her female
sex and changes to the particulars of her civil status in her birth certificate. Her
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
request was refused.
Bulgarian law, as interpreted by the national courts, does not provide for the
possibility to change the sex, name or personal identification number recorded in the
civil status documents in such a case.
The Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation before which the dispute has been brought
doubts the compatibility of that legislation with EU law and made a reference for a
preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-43/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12 th March
Judgment in Case C-477/24 Delwyn
(Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom to provide services – Non-discrimination and
citizenship of the Union)
A non-EU-country national married to a EU citizen saw his derived right of residence
challenged after the divorce. The Irish authorities refused to provide him with the
information in the file relating to his ex-wife’s periods of employment, which were the
reason for the refusal to renew his residence card.
The applicant requested that this information be disclosed, invoking the principle of
good administration and the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Background Documents C-477/24
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
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)
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI 2026: 2nd – 13th March 2026
Wednesday 4th March 2026: 09:30 Case C-332/25 Friends of the Irish Environment
(Food Vision 2030) (Environment)
Tuesday 10th March 2026: 09:00 Case C-250/25 Like Company (Approximation of laws Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom to provide services – System of property
ownership) (streamed on the Curia website)
Wednesday 11th March 2026: 09:30 Case C-179/25 P Tauber v Council (Restrictive
measures – Republic of Moldova – Common foreign and security policy)
Thursday 12th March 2026: 09:30 Case C-900/24 SVB (Approximation of laws – Consumer
protection)
General Court
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)
Wednesday 11th March 2026: 09:30 Case T-15/25 Nvidia v Commission (Competition)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.