(AGENPARL) – gio 27 febbraio 2025 Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week X: 03rd to 07th March
Thursday 06th March
Judgment in Joined Cases C-647/21 D. K. (Dismissal of a judge) and C-648/21 M.C.
and M.F. (Dismissal of a judge)
(Principles of Community law – Fundamental rights)
In October 2021, the panel of the Regional Court of S?upsk (Poland) dismissed one of
the judges of this court from approximately seventy pending cases for which she was
the reporting judge.
Adopted without her consent, the panel’s resolution had not been notified to her and
Niamh
contained no justification. The judge was also denied access to its contents.
Leneghan
Subsequently, the cases in question were reassigned to another judge.
assisted in the
preparation of
this Newsletter.
The judge considers that these measures constitute a form of punishment for her
attempts to challenge the lawfulness of the appointment of a judge with whom she sat
on another bench and for having set aside a first-instance judgment delivered by a
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
court that did not meet the requirements of EU law.
The purpose of dismissal would be to prevent future attempts to do so.
Twitter)
Download our
In two of the cases from which she was relieved, the judge referred the matter to the
Court of Justice. She wishes to know whether, in the light of EU law (Article 19 of the
Treaty of the European Union), she is still entitled to continue to examine them,
despite the above-mentioned resolution and the subsequent reassignment of these
cases to another judge.
Background Documents C-647/21
Background Documents C-648/21
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
Thursday 06th March
Judgment in Case C-315/23 Commission v Croatia (Biljane Donje II landfill site)
(Environment)
on our website
In May 2019, the Court of Justice ruled (C-250/18) that Croatia had failed to comply
for details of
with the rules of EU law and, more specifically, with its obligations under the Waste
other cases.
Directive. The Directive aims to prevent or reduce the negative effects that waste
management can have on the environment and human health.
Since 2010, around 140,000 tonnes of stone aggregates have been landfilled in the
village of Biljane Donje, close to homes, without any significant intervention from the
relevant Croatian authorities. These products presented a risk of releasing harmful
substances, and contained hazardous substances and radioactivity in excess of
authorised levels.
In its 2019 judgment, the Court concluded that stone aggregates sent to landfill must
be considered ‘waste’ within the meaning of the Directive and that they must be
managed without endangering human health or harming the environment. In
addition, Croatia had to take the necessary measures to ensure that the holder of the
waste treated it themselves or had it treated by professionals.
In May 2023, taking the view that Croatia had still not complied with the 2019
judgment, the European Commission brought a new action for failure to fulfil
obligations.
Background Documents C-315/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 06th March
Judgment in Case C-20/24 Cymdek
(Transport)
A charter air carrier entered into a contract with a tour operator. Under this contract,
the carrier operated flights on specific dates for which the tour operator sold tickets to
air passengers. The tour operator also paid the prices of the flights.
Subsequently, a third party company entered into a package tour contract with the
tour operator. It did so in the name and on behalf of the travellers.
The trip included a flight from Tenerife to Warsaw, which was delayed by more than 22
hours on arrival.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
Two passengers on this flight claimed compensation from the air carrier under EU law
(Regulation (EC) No 261/2004).
The carrier refused on two grounds. Firstly, the passengers were not in possession of a
confirmed and paid reservation for the flight. Copies of boarding passes would not be
sufficient in this respect.
Secondly, the passengers’ package holiday was paid for by a third company on
preferential terms. Consequently, they would have travelled free of charge or at a
reduced fare, which would exclude their right to compensation.
The Polish court, before which these passengers brought the case, has referred the
matter to the Court of Justice. It wants to know whether, contrary to the air carrier’s
position, passengers should be compensated under EU law.
Background Documents C-20/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 06th March
Judgments in Cases C-149/23 Commission v Germany, C-150/23 Commission v
Luxembourg, C-152/23 Commission v Czech Republic, C-154/23 Commission v
Estonia and C-155/23 Commission v Hungary (Whistleblower Directive)
(Approximation of laws)
The Commission asked the Court of Justice to declare that certain Member States
(Germany, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Estonia and Hungary) had failed to fulfil their
obligations under the Whistleblower Directive by failing to adopt the provisions
necessary to comply with it and, in any event, by failing to communicate those
provisions to the Commission.
Background Documents C-149/23
Background Documents C-150/23
Background Documents C-152/23
Background Documents C-154/23
Background Documents C-155/23
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
Thursday 06th March
Judgment in Case C-41/24 Waltham Abbey Residents Association
(Environment)
The case concerns a strategic development project for 123 apartments in Ballincollig,
Ireland. As part of the application process, the developer submitted environmental
reports under Directive 2011/92/EU (the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive)
and Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive). However, both reports were found to
be insufficient.
The environmental impact assessment failed to analyse the local flora and fauna,
omitting any reference to bats, a species protected under EU law. Further, the
appropriate assessment focused solely on designated Natura 2000 sites and did not
consider the ecosystem of the development site itself. Finally, a separate tree
assessment identified 13 trees for removal but failed to consider whether these were
used by bats for roosting or feeding.
Despite these gaps, the planning authority approved the project without requiring a
full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), concluding that the development was
unlikely to have significant environmental effects based on its size, nature, and
location.
On July 7, 2020, a third party submitted observations highlighting the site’s proximity
to a biological corridor along the River Lee and presenting evidence of bats in the area.
They also cited a 2016 study confirming various bat species’ reliance on the local
habitat.
The planning authority approved the project without requiring a full Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA), concluding that the development was unlikely to have
significant environmental effects based on its size, nature, and location. The authority
did not seek any further information, requiring only that tree felling be supervised by
an ecologist to mitigate potential impacts on bats.
The applicant challenged this decision before the High Court (Ireland), arguing that the
authority failed to meet its obligations under the EIA Directive and the Habitats
Directive, particularly in applying the precautionary principle and protecting species
under strict legal safeguards.
The High Court has referred several questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling. It seeks clarification on whether authorities must demand additional studies
when environmental concerns arise — especially regarding protected species—and
whether the precautionary principle requires a full EIA when there is reasonable doubt
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
about a project’s environmental impact.
Background Documents C-41/24
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
Week XI: 10th to 14th March
Tuesday 11th March
Opinion in Case C-448/23 Commission v Poland (Ultra vires review of the Court’s
case-law – Primacy of Union law)
(Principles of Community law)
The European Commission decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the
European Union for violations of EU law by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and its
case law.
The Commission considers that the rulings of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal
breached the general principles of autonomy, primacy, effectiveness, uniform
application of Union law and the binding effect of rulings of the Court of Justice of the
European Union.
They also breach Article 19(1) TEU, which guarantees the right to effective judicial
protection, by giving it an unduly restrictive interpretation. Thereby it deprives
individuals before Polish courts from the full guarantees set out in that provision.
The Commission also considers that the Constitutional Tribunal no longer meets the
requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.
The Commission opened the infringement procedure against Poland on December 22,
2021, by sending a letter of formal notice. This followed the rulings of the Polish
Constitutional Tribunal of July 14, 2021 and October 7, 2021, where it had considered
provisions of the EU Treaties incompatible with the Polish Constitution, expressly
challenging the primacy of EU law.
On July 15, 2022, the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion to Poland, to
which Poland replied on September 14, 2022, rejecting the reasoning of the
Commission and not addressing its concerns.
The Commission decided then to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European
Union.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
Background Documents C-448/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 13th March
Judgment in Case C-247/23 Deldits
(Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties – Data protection)
A person of Iranian nationality was granted refugee status in Hungary on the basis of
his trans-identity in 2014. However, he was registered in the register kept by the
asylum authority according to his birth gender.
In 2022, he submitted an application to this authority seeking to rectify the reference
to his gender as male and to change his first name on the basis of the GDPR. He relied
on the same medical attestations drawn up by specialists in psychiatry and
gynaecology, but his application was rejected on the grounds that he had not proved
that he had undergone gender reassignment surgery and that the attestations
provided only established his trans-identity.
The citizen concerned brought an action for annulment of that decision before the
F?városi Törvényszék (Budapest-Capital Court, Hungary). This court is asking the Court
of Justice whether the asylum authority is obliged to rectify the gender data in the
asylum register on the basis of the GDPR and, if so, what would be the evidence that
the person concerned would have to provide in support of their claim.
The referring court adds that, as the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the European
Court of Human Rights have already ruled, Hungarian law does not provide for a
procedure for the legal recognition of a change of gender identity for refugees and
since 2020 the possibility of such recognition has ceased to exist for Hungarian
nationals as well.
Background Documents C-247/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 13th March
Judgment in Case C-271/24 P Shuvalov v Council
(Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
Between 2008 and 2018, Igor Shuvalov was Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
government. On May 24, 2018 he became President of Vnesheconombank (VEB.RF,
Development and Foreign Trade Bank). As a state-owned financial institution, this
bank implements the economic policy determined by the President of the Russian
Federation.
In February 2022, considering that Mr Shuvalov supported actions and policies that
compromised the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, the
Council included him on the list of persons targeted by restrictive measures adopted
by the European Union (Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265 and Council Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2022/260). This has led, among other things, to the freezing of its
funds and financial resources, as well as a ban on entering EU territory.
In September 2022 (Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 and Council Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2022/1529) and March 2023 (Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 and
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571), the Council decided to extend the
restrictive measures against him.
Mr Shuvalov’s application to have these Council acts annulled insofar as they
concerned him was rejected by the General Court of the European Union (T-289/22).
Mr Shuvalov then appealed against this judgment of the General Court to the Court of
Justice.
Background Documents C-271/24 P
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Tuesday 4th March 2025: 09:30 – Case C-767/23 Remling (Principles of Community law)
(streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 5th March 2025: 09:30 – Case C-313/24 Opera Laboratori Fiorentini
(Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
Wednesday 5th March 2025: 09:30 – Case C-276/24 KONREO (Harmonisation of tax
legislation – Common system of VAT)
Wednesday 5th March 2025: 09:30 – Case C-294/24 Zadzhova (Consumer protection –
Unfair terms in consumer contracts)
Monday 10th March 2025: 14:30 – Case C-155/24 Nederlandse Voedsel- en
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
Warenautoriteit and Others (Freedom to provide services – Freedom to provide services)
(streamed on Curia)
Tuesday 11th March 2025: 09:30 – Case C-698/23 P EDPS v Parliament and Council (Law
governing the institutions) (streamed on Curia)
Thursday 13th March 2025: 09:00 – Case C-161/24 OSA (Competition – Dominant position)
General Court
Tuesday 4th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-600/23 BNetzA / ACER and Case T-612/23
Germany v ACER (Energy – Internal market in electricity)
Wednesday 5th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-188/24 General Company of
Establishments Michelin v Commission (Competition)
Wednesday 5th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-348/22 PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and
Chrome Alloy v Commission (Commercial policy)
Wednesday 5th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-1095/23 OT v Council (Restrictive measures Ukraine)
Thursday 6th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-623/22 SD v EMA (Access to documents –
Documents of the European Medicines Agency)
Thursday 6th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-348/23 Zalando v Commission (Information
society – Digital space)
Thursday 6th March 2025: 14:30 – Case T-289/24 Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v
Commission (Competition)
Monday 10th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-1024/23 London EV v Commission
(Environment)
Wednesday 12th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-556/23 Swissgrid v ACER and Joined
Cases T-557/23 and T-558/23 Swissgrid v ACER (Energy)
Wednesday 12th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-1117/23 Usmanov v Council (Restrictive
measures – Ukraine)
Thursday 13th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-1026/23 Laudamotion v Commission
(Competition – Air transport market)
Thursday 13th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-290/23 MeSoFa v SRB and Case T-291/23
MeSoFa v SRB (Access to documents – Economic and monetary policy)
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 3rd to 14th March 2025
Thursday 13th March 2025: 09:30 – Case T-1026/23 Laudamotion v Commission
(Competition)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.