(AGENPARL) – Thu 27 March 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Week XIV: 31st March to 4th April
Thursday 3rd April
Judgment in Case C-743/24 Alchaster II
(Fundamental rights – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal
matters)
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
The Irish Supreme Court refers, for a second time, after the case Alchaster C-202/24
(see also press release No 117/24), a question to the Court in a matter concerning a
case in which the Irish authorities are in doubt as to whether a person alleged to have
Desk Email
committed a series of offences under the law of the United Kingdom can be
surrendered to the United Kingdom under the relevant provisions of the Trade and
Lily Mahon
Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the EU and the United Kingdom.
assisted in the
preparation of
this Newsletter.
A district judge of the Magistrates’ Courts of Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) issued
four arrest warrants against a person suspected of having committed terrorist
offences. In his appeal to the Supreme Court of Ireland, the interested party claimed
that his surrender would be incompatible with the principle that offences and
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
penalties must be defined by law, because of an unfavourable change to the rules on
release on licence adopted by the United Kingdom after the suspected commission of
the offences in question.
In Alchaster, replying to the first reference, the Court held that Member State judicial
authorities must independently check whether sending a person to the UK in
Download our
execution of a warrant could violate their rights under the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the EU. Following that examination, that executing judicial authority could
refuse to carry out the arrest warrant only if, after asking for more details and
assurances, it had clear and updated proof that the person might face a heavier
penalty than what was originally set when the crime was committed.
In this second reference, the Supreme Court is asking whether the concept of a
“heavier penalty” under the Charter includes a situation where the rules governing the
parole regime have changed.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
Background Documents C-743/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 3rd April
on our website
for details of
Opinion in Case C-92/23 Commission v Hungary (Right to provide media services
other cases.
in a radiofrequency)
(Principles of Community Law)
Klubrádió is a Hungarian commercial radio station which, from 1999, broadcast
programmes dealing with topics relating to the country’s public life. In 2014, it signed a
new 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 further five years.
When the contract expired, the Media Council refused to renew it: it considered that
Klubrádió had twice failed to provide monthly information on broadcasting quotas,
which constituted a repeated infringement.
However, according to Hungarian media law, a repeated infringement automatically
implies refusal to renew, as minor infringements are excluded from this concept.
Subsequently, the Media Council published a new invitation to tender for the provision
of media services on the frequency concerned, but Klubrádió’s application was
declared invalid. The decision was justified by programming errors and Klubrádió’s
negative equity in the five years prior to its application.
Klubrádio’s application for temporary use of the frequency was also rejected.
Arguing that by preventing this radio station from providing its services, Hungary had
failed to fulfil its obligations under the regulatory framework for electronic
communications networks and services (Directive 2002/21/EC) and the principle of
proportionality, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil
obligations before the Court.
Background Documents C-92/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
Thursday 3rd April
Opinion in Case C-713/23 Wojewoda Mazowiecki
(Citizenship of the Union)
Two Polish nationals, one of whom also has German nationality, were married in
Berlin in 2018. They then applied for the transcription of their German marriage
certificate in the Polish civil register. This request was refused on the grounds that
Polish law does not provide for marriage between persons of the same sex, and
therefore the transcription of the marriage certificate in question would violate the
fundamental principles of the legal order of that Member State.
The spouses are challenging this refusal, stating their intention to travel to and stay in
Poland while being recognised as married. The Polish Supreme Administrative Court,
which was dealing with this case, referred it to the Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling. It seeks to ascertain whether the legislation or practice of a Member State that
does not allow for the recognition of same-sex marriages or the transcription of such
marriages in the civil register is compatible with EU law.
Background Documents C-713/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XV: 7th to 11th April
Tuesday 8th April
Judgment in Case C-292/23 EPPO (Judicial review of procedural documents)
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters)
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is an independent body of the
European Union responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to trial the
perpetrators of criminal offences against the EU’s financial interests.
It is organised on two levels: on the one hand, a central level, consisting of the Central
Office, located in Luxembourg, the seat of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office,
and, on the other hand, a decentralised level, consisting of the Deputy European
Public Prosecutors who are assigned to the Member States.
EPPO was conducting a criminal investigation in Spain into fraud involving EU
subsidies. The Deputy European Public Prosecutors in charge of the case have called
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
two people as witnesses.
The subjects of the investigation have challenged the summons of one of the
witnesses. The ‘judge of guarantees’, who provides judicial review of the EPPO’s
investigative measures in Spain, referred the case to the Court of Justice.
He pointed out that Spanish law only authorises judicial review of procedural
measures taken by the EPPO in certain cases expressly provided for, which do not
include the summoning of witnesses. In his view, however, the summoning of
witnesses is an act capable of producing legal effects in relation to third parties. It
therefore considers that the control provided for by EU law over this type of act should
be exercised, in order to avoid an unjustified restriction of the rights conferred by EU
Background Documents C-292/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 10th April
Judgment in Case C-481/23 Sangas
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Police
cooperation)
This case involves a request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional
(Spain) concerning criminal proceedings against an individual identified as JMTB.
JMTB was convicted of three offenses against the taxation authorities and one offense
of money laundering. The sentences imposed were:
Taxation offenses: For each of the three offenses, JMTB received two years of
imprisonment and fines of € 23 million (for the financial year 2011), € 135
million (2012), and € 140 million (2013). Additionally, JMTB faced a three-year
prohibition from receiving public subsidies or grants and from benefiting from
tax or social security incentives.
Money laundering offense: JMTB was sentenced to six years of imprisonment
and a fine of € 54 million.
The convictions were based on JMTB’s creation of several companies in Spain,
appointing fictitious agents as apparent directors, with the intent to evade the
payment of value-added tax (VAT).
The Audiencia Nacional has sought guidance from the Court on the interpretation of
certain provisions related to the European Arrest Warrant and the enforcement of
sentences, particularly concerning the conditions under which a Member State may
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
refuse to execute a European arrest warrant.
Background Documents C-481/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 10th April
Judgment in Case C-607/21 – Belgian State (Proof of arm’s length relationship)
(Citizenship of the Union – Freedom of establishment – Freedom of movement for workers–
Freedom to provide services)
This case concerns Ms. XXX, a Moroccan national and mother of AL, a Belgian citizen
residing in Belgium. AL’s partner, Ms. N.E.K., is a Dutch national who moved to
Belgium in 2005, where she has lived with AL since.
Ms. XXX entered Belgium on July 25, 2011, on a tourist visa. On September 21, 2011,
she applied for a residence card, claiming dependency on her son. However, Belgian
legislation had recently been amended to exclude the right to family reunification for
Belgian citizens with their ascendants. Consequently, her application was rejected on
October 21, 2011.
Despite the rejection, Ms. XXX continued to reside with her son and his partner in
Belgium. On June 26, 2015, she submitted a second application for a residence card,
this time as a dependent family member of Ms. N.E.K., a mobile EU citizen. The Belgian
authorities denied this application on September 28, 2015, citing insufficient
documentation of the household’s resources and outdated evidence of Ms. XXX’s
dependency. An order to leave Belgian territory accompanied this decision.
Ms. XXX challenged the refusal, but the Council for Asylum and Immigration
Proceedings (Belgium) dismissed her action on April 14, 2016, addressing only the
issue of insufficient documentation of resources. Undeterred, she filed a third
application on November 9, 2017, again as a family member of Ms. N.E.K. This
application was rejected on May 2, 2018, with authorities again pointing to outdated
evidence of dependency.
The case raises questions about the interpretation of “dependency” under the
Citizenship Directive, particularly concerning the geographical aspect of dependency
— whether it is necessary for an ascendant to have been in need of care in their
country of origin to qualify as dependent.
Background Documents C-607/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
Thursday 10th April
Opinion in Case C-136/24 P Hamoudi v Frontex
(Law governing the institutions – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum policy)
This case is an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
concerning allegations against the European Border and Coast Guard Agency
(Frontex).
The appellant, Alaa Hamoudi, a Syrian asylum seeker, claims that on April 28, 2020, he
and 21 others were subjected to a “pushback” operation in the Aegean Sea. Hamoudi
asserts that after arriving from Turkey by boat and entering Greek territory on the
island of Samos to seek asylum, local police intercepted him, confiscated his mobile
phone, and later, Greek authorities forced him and others back out to sea.
Hamoudi initially sought damages from Frontex in the General Court (Case T-136/22),
alleging the agency’s involvement in the operation violated his fundamental rights. On
December 13, 2023, the General Court dismissed his action, stating that the evidence
provided was insufficient to demonstrate the alleged events and resulting damages.
Subsequently, on February 19, 2024, Hamoudi appealed this decision. The appeal
argues that the General Court erred in its legal assessment of the evidence and in
concluding that Hamoudi failed to demonstrate actual damage.
Background Documents C-136/24 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 10th April
Opinion in Joined Cases C-758/24 Alace and C-759/24 Canpelli
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum policy – Safe third country or Safe country
of origin)
Joined Cases C-758/24 (Alace) and C-759/24 (Canpelli) before the Court of Justice of the
European Union involve preliminary ruling requests from the Tribunale ordinario di
Roma (District Court of Rome, Italy).
These cases concern the interpretation of Articles 36, 37, and 38 of Asylum Procedures
Directive, which establish common procedures for granting and withdrawing
international protection, particularly regarding the designation of “safe countries of
origin.”
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
The central issue in these cases is the compatibility of Italy’s unilateral designation of
Bangladesh as a safe country of origin with EU law. The applicants, Alace and Canpelli,
are asylum seekers whose applications were processed under accelerated procedures
due to their countries being listed as safe origins. They challenge the validity of this
designation, arguing that it may not comply with the criteria set out in Directive
2013/32/EU.
Background Documents C-758/24
Background Documents C-759/24
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 10th April
Opinion in Case C-225/22 AW “T”
(Principles of Community law – Fundamental rights)
The case concerns a dispute between AW “T,” a Polish company, and “R,” a stateowned enterprise, following an extraordinary appeal by the Polish Prosecutor General.
In 2021, the Polish Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber
annulled a 2006 ruling on unfair competition, despite it being final. AW “T” challenged
this annulment, arguing that the court issuing the 2021 ruling was improperly
constituted, based on decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
and the CJEU.
AW “T” relied on ECtHR and CJEU rulings, which found that judges appointed by
Poland’s National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) lacked legitimacy, making their
decisions non-binding. The company also objected to the extraordinary appeal being
allowed 14 years after the original ruling, arguing it served only the economic interests
of a state-owned firm. The referring court noted that the judges involved in the 2021
ruling were appointed under irregular circumstances, as their selection had been
challenged in court but was pushed through by the Polish President before a final
ruling.
The CJEU is now asked to assess the validity of judgments issued by unlawfully
constituted courts and their impact on EU law principles.
Background Documents C-225/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XIV – XV: 31st March to 11th April 2025
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Thursday 3rd April 2025: 09:30 – Case C-366/24 Amazon EU (Minimum book delivery
rates) (Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Free movement of goods –
Quantitative restrictions)
Tuesday 8th April 2025: 09:30 – Case C-799/23 Commission v Slovakia (Ethnic
discrimination in education) (Social Policy) (streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 9th April 2025: 09:30 – Case C-440/23 European Lotto and Betting and
Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten (Freedom to provide services)
Wednesday 9th April 2025: 09:30 – Case C-291/24 Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse
and Others (Approximation of laws)
Thursday 10th April 2025: 09:00 – Case C-245/24 LUKOIL Bulgaria and LUKOIL Neftohim
Burgas (Competition)
Thursday 10th April 2025: 11:00 – Case C-260/24 LUKOIL Bulgaria (Competition)
General Court
Tuesday 1st April 2025: 09:30 – Case T-553/23 Latombe v Commission (Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice)
Wednesday 2nd April 2025: 14:30 – Case T-273/24 Ezubov v Council (Restrictive measures
– Ukraine)
Thursday 3rd April 2025: 09:30 – Case T-523/22 and Case T-524/22 MeSoFa v
Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary policy)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.