(AGENPARL) – Thu 12 March 2026 Newsletter
Weeks XII – XIII 2026: 16th– 27th March 2026
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Week XII: 16th to 20th March
Tuesday 17th March
Judgment in Case C-258/24 Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung
(Fundamental rights – Principles of Union law – Social policy)
Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung is an association within the German Catholic
Church that provides counselling to pregnant women. It requires all its employees to
comply with the guidelines of the Catholic Church, according to which all pregnancy
counselling must aim to protect the life of the unborn child and must therefore be
guided by the desire to encourage the pregnant woman to continue with the
pregnancy and accept her child.
When one of its counsellors, a member of the Catholic Church, left the Church,
Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung dismissed her on that very ground. According
to the applicable canon law, leaving the Catholic Church is considered a serious breach
of the duty of loyalty.
However, this association also employed staff in the same counselling service who did
not belong to the Catholic Church and who were therefore not at risk of being
dismissed for the same reason. Furthermore, the counsellor concerned had justified
All times are 9:30
(CET) unless
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
her withdrawal/dismissal on the grounds that the diocese of Limburg levied, in
addition to church tax, an additional church contribution on Catholics who, like her,
were married in an interfaith marriage to a spouse with a high income.
She therefore challenged her dismissal before the German courts.
for details of
The Federal Labour Court, considering that the dismissal of the counsellor constituted
other cases.
direct discrimination on the basis of religion, expressed doubts as to whether this
difference in treatment could be justified. It therefore asked the Court of Justice to
interpret the EU rules on equal treatment in employment and occupation in the light
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Background Documents C-258/24
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XII – XIII 2026: 16th – 27th March 2026
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th March
Judgment in Case C-526/24 Brillen Rottler
(Principles of Union law)
A citizen residing in Austria subscribed to the newsletter of the family-owned optical
company Brillen Rottler, based in Arnsberg, Germany, more than 500 kilometres from
the German-Austrian border. To do so, he entered his personal data in the registration
form available on the company’s website and consented to the processing of this data.
Thirteen days later, he sent Brillen Rottler a request for access under the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under that regulation, a data subject has the right to
obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning
him or her are being processed and, where that is the case, access to the personal
data and information relating to it.
Brillen Rottler rejected the request, considering it to be abusive. Indeed, various
reports, blog articles and lawyers’ newsletters suggest that the citizen in question
systematically subscribes to newsletters before submitting a request for access and
then a claim for compensation. The citizen, on the other hand, considers his request
for access to be legitimate and is seeking compensation of at least € 1,000 for the nonmaterial damage he suffered as a result of Brillen Rottler’s refusal.
The Arnsberg District Court, before which the dispute was brought, referred the
matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-526/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th March
Judgment in Case C-371/24 Comdribus
(Principles of Union law)
The case originates from criminal proceedings in France against an individual
suspected of having committed a criminal offence. In May 2020, while taking part with
around a hundred other climate activists in an Extinction Rebellion action in Paris, HW
was stopped by the police in a public place on suspicion of organising an undeclared
demonstration and resisting law-enforcement officers.
Newsletter
Weeks XII – XIII 2026: 16th – 27th March 2026
During the investigation, the competent authorities sought to collect and register
certain personal and biometric data of the suspect for inclusion in police databases
used for criminal identification. The suspect refused to cooperate with that datacollection process. Under French law, such refusal may itself constitute a criminal
offence.
Seised of the case, the Cour d’appel de Paris harboured doubts as to whether the
national rules governing the compulsory collection and retention of personal and
biometric data in police databases, and the criminalisation of a refusal to cooperate
with that collection, are compatible with Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of
personal data processed for law-enforcement purposes and with the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in
particular the rights to privacy and protection of personal data. The national court
therefore decided to stay the proceedings and referred several questions to the Court
of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-371/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th March
Judgment in Case C-679/24 UniCredit Bank and Momentum Credit
(Approximation of law – Consumer protection)
The case arises from proceedings in Hungary between a consumer, HL, and two
financial institutions, UniCredit Bank Zrt. and Momentum Credit Zrt., concerning a
consumer loan agreement. The dispute relates to contractual terms governing the
exchange-rate risk associated with a foreign-currency-denominated loan concluded
with the consumer.
The consumer brought an action before the Hungarian courts claiming that the
contractual information concerning the exchange-rate risk, which forms part of the
main subject matter of the loan agreement, is unfair and therefore invalid under EU
consumer protection law. The referring court, the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest
High Court), must determine whether the consumer’s financial claims arising from that
alleged unfairness are subject to the five-year limitation period provided for under
Hungarian civil law, calculated from the moment when the claim could first be
brought.
Harbouring doubts as to whether such a limitation rule is compatible with the
objectives of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
national court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer several questions to the
Newsletter
Weeks XII – XIII 2026: 16th – 27th March 2026
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-679/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th March
Judgments in Joined cases C-171/24 P EVH v Commission, C-172/24 P Stadtwerke
Leipzig v Commission, C-173/24 P TEAG v Commission, C-174/24 P Stadtwerke
Hameln Weserbergland v Commission, C-175/24 P eins energie in sachsen v
Commission, C-176/24 P EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission, C-177/24 P
GGEW v Commission
and Joined cases C-178/24 P Mainova v Commission and C-179/24 P enercity v
Commission
(Competition)
The cases concern a series of appeals brought by several German municipal energy
suppliers — EVH, Stadtwerke Leipzig, TEAG, Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland, eins
energie in sachsen, EnergieVerbund Dresden, GGEW, Mainova and enercity — against
judgments of the General Court of the European Union dismissing their actions for
annulment of a decision of the European Commission concerning State aid granted to
a German electricity producer.
In its contested decision, the Commission concluded that a German support measure
granted to an energy company in connection with the restructuring of its electricity
generation activities was compatible with the internal market under the EU rules on
State aid. The applicant municipal energy suppliers, which operate in the German
electricity market, brought actions before the General Court seeking the annulment of
that decision. They argued, in particular, that the measure distorted competition in the
electricity market and that the Commission had misapplied the relevant State-aid rules
when approving the aid.
The General Court dismissed those actions as inadmissible, holding that the applicants
had failed to demonstrate that they were individually concerned by the contested
Commission decision. The energy suppliers have therefore brought appeals before the
Court of Justice seeking to have those judgments set aside and to challenge the
General Court’s assessment of their standing to bring an action for annulment under
Article 263 TFEU.
Background Documents C-171/24 P
Background Documents C-178/24 P
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks XII – XIII 2026: 16th – 27th March 2026
Thursday 19th March
Opinion in Case C-354/24 – Elisa Eesti
(Fundamental rights – Free movement of goods – Principles of Union law)
The case arises from proceedings in Estonia brought by Elisa Eesti AS, a
telecommunications operator, challenging national decisions linked to Estonia’s
authorisation regime for network hardware and software on national-security
grounds.
In March 2022, Elisa Eesti applied to the Estonian Consumer Protection and Technical
Supervision Authority (TTJA) for a usage permit covering (i) existing Huawei 2G–4G
hardware/software already deployed in its network and (ii) Huawei 5G
hardware/software planned for introduction from June 2022.
In October 2022, the Cyber Security Council concluded that all the hardware and
software listed in the application posed a threat to national security and proposed
issuing time-limited authorisation. In November 2022, TTJA adopted a decision
granting authorisation only for limited periods (5G until December 31, 2025; 2G–4G
until December 31, 2029), relying on the Cyber Security Council’s assessment.
Elisa Eesti challenged both the Cyber Security Council decision and TTJA’s decision
before the Tallinna Halduskohus (Tallinn Administrative Court), alleging unlawfulness
and disproportionate interference with, inter alia, fundamental rights (including
property and equality). The national court stayed the proceedings and referred
questions to the Court of Justice.
Applicable legislation:
Directive (EU) 2018/1972 establishing the European Electronic
Communications Code – The EECC Directive
Directive (EU) 2015/1535 (information procedure for technical regulations) –
The TRIS Directive
Background Documents C-354/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th March
Opinion in Case C-530/24 – Tipico
(Freedom to provide services)
A German consumer brought claims against the Maltese sports betting operator Tipico
Newsletter