(AGENPARL) – Thu 17 July 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21th July –1st August 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week XXX: 21st to 25th July
Wednesday 23rd July
General Court
Judgment in Case T-84/22 UBS Group and Others v Commission
(Competition)
Following an investigation into the spot foreign exchange market (FOREX) for G10
currencies, the Commission revealed that, between 2011 and 2012, certain traders in
charge of the said operations, acting on behalf of several banks, had exchanged
sensitive information and trading plans. They also coordinated their strategies
Lily Mahon
assisted in the
preparation of
this Newsletter.
periodically on a professional online discussion forum called ‘Sterling Lads.’
These exchanges of information enabled the traders to make decisions as to whether
and when to sell or buy these currencies or occasionally to identify opportunities for
coordination.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Through this conduct, five undertakings active in the banking and financial sector,
namely Credit Suisse, Barclays, HSBC, RBS and UBS, reduced uncertainty on the
market, thereby distorting free competition.
Twitter)
Download our
The Commission therefore adopted a decision imposing a total fine of €261 million on
the four banks (Barclays, HSBC, RBS and UBS) that cooperated with it. UBS was
granted conditional immunity as a reward for revealing the existence of the cartels.
On the other hand, since Credit Suisse did not cooperate with the Commission during
this investigation, it did not benefit from any reduction of this type. The Commission
therefore imposed a fine of €83.2 million on Credit Suisse in a separate decision.
UBS Group AG, successor to Credit Suisse Group AG, UBS AG, successor to Credit
Suisse AG, and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd considered that they had been
adversely affected by the latter decision and brought an action before the General
Court. They sought, primarily, the annulment of the decision and, at the very least, a
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
reduction in the amount of the fine.
All times are 9:30
(CET) unless
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
Background Documents T-84/22
There will be a press release for this case.
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Week XXXI: 28st July to 1st August
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Joined Cases C-758/24 Alace and C-759/24 Canpelli
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Borders, asylum and immigration – Border checks /
Asylum policy)
In accordance with Asylum Procedures Directive, Member States may speed up the
examination of applications for international protection and take them to the border
when these applications come from nationals of countries considered to offer
sufficient protection.
In Italy, these non-EU countries were designated as safe countries of origin by a
legislative act of 2024.
It was in this context that two Bangladeshi nationals, transferred to a detention centre
in Albania under the Italy-Albania protocol, applied for international protection. Their
application was examined under the accelerated procedure at the border by the
Italian authorities, who rejected it as unfounded, as their country of origin was
considered safe.
The applicants challenged the rejection decision before the ordinary court in Rome,
which turned to the Court of Justice to clarify the application of the safe country of
origin concept and the Member States’ obligations with regard to effective judicial
review. The referring court submits that, unlike the previous regime, the 2024
legislative act does not specify the sources of information on which the Italian
legislature relied to assess the safety of the country.
Consequently, both the applicant and the judicial authority are deprived of the
possibility, respectively, of challenging and reviewing the lawfulness of such a
presumption of security, by examining in particular the provenance, authority,
reliability, relevance, up-to-dateness and completeness of those sources.
Background Documents C-758/24
Background Documents C-759/24
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
There will be one press release for these cases.
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Joined Cases C-422/23 Daka, C-455/23 Garera, C-459/23 E., C-486/23 S.
and C-493/23 Miasto W.
(Law governing the institutions)
The Civil Division of the Polish Supreme Court has doubts about the independence
and impartiality of the three-judge panels called upon to rule on five different appeals
in cassation.
In addition to a judge from the Civil Division, these panels include two judges from the
Labour and Social Insurance Division. The latter were appointed to sit in the Civil
Division for a period of three months.
The appointments of the latter judges, which were not reasoned and were not agreed
to, and the appointments of the panels called upon to rule on the five appeals were
decided by the First President and the President of the Civil Chamber of the Polish
Supreme Court, who were allegedly appointed judges to that court under conditions
incompatible with European Union law (see case C-487/19, and the relevant press
release No 173/21).
The judges concerned have no effective means of challenging their appointment.
Furthermore, they have not been exempted from jurisdictional activities in their
chamber of origin, which would lead to a doubling of their workload. They also
consider that, in view of the specialisation of the judges, their appointment to sit in
another chamber could compromise the quality of the justice dispensed.
The Court of Justice was asked to give a preliminary ruling on the question of whether
the formations of the Civil Chamber, composed in such circumstances, comply with
the requirements of an independent, impartial and legally established court, as laid
down by European Union law.
Background Documents C-422/23
Background Documents C-455/23
Background Documents C-459/23
Background Documents C-486/23
Background Documents C-493/23
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Case C-97/24 The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability,
Integration and Youth
(Principles of Union law – Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Right)
Two asylum seekers, Afghan and Indian nationals, who were forced to live in
precarious conditions in Ireland due to a lack of accommodation in saturated
reception centres, have appealed to the High Court (Ireland) for compensation for the
loss suffered as a result of the absence of minimum material reception conditions.
The Irish authorities acknowledged that there had been a breach of EU law, but
claimed that there had been a case of force majeure linked to the massive influx of
non-EU-country nationals following the invasion of Ukraine.
The High Court asked the Court of Justice whether State liability could be excluded in
such circumstances, despite the obligations arising from the Reception Conditions
Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Background Documents C-97/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Case C-665/23 Veracash
(Free movement of capital)
A consumer holds a gold deposit account with Veracash SAS. In March 2017, Veracash
sent him a new withdrawal and payment card. Between March and May 2017, daily
withdrawals were made from this account. The consumer in question, however,
maintains that he never received this payment card or authorised these withdrawals.
The High Court of Évry, followed by the Court of Appeal of Paris (France), dismissed his
claim for reimbursement on the grounds that the disputed withdrawals had not been
reported to Veracash “without delay” or “immediately,” as required by the Monetary
and Financial Code, which transposes the Directive on Payment Services in the Internal
Market, but only in May 2017, almost two months after the first disputed withdrawal.
However, this notification had, in fact, been made within the maximum period of
thirteen months provided for by law.
The consumer filed an appeal in cassation.
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
In this context, the French Court of Cassation turned to the Court of Justice of the
European Union. The referring court wishes to know whether the directive in question
must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the payer to be deprived of the right to
reimbursement for an unauthorised transaction in the event of late notification, even
if this was made within the thirteen-month period.
Furthermore, if this is permitted, the court asks whether it presupposes gross
negligence or intentional conduct on the part of the payer, and whether it concerns all
unauthorised transactions or only those that could have been avoided.
Background Documents C-665/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Joined Cases C-92/24 Banca Mediolanum – C-93/24 Banca
Mediolanum II – C-94/24 Banca Mediolanum III
(Taxation)
During the 2014 and 2015 tax years, Banca Mediolanum, a bank with tax residence in
Italy, received dividends from its subsidiaries that had their tax residence in other EU
Member States.
Banca Mediolanum included these dividends in the base for corporate income tax
(‘IRES’), up to a limit of 5% of their amount.
In its capacity as a financial intermediary, it also included these dividends in the base
for regional tax on productive activities (‘IRAP’), up to a limit of 50% of their amount, in
order to comply with a provision of the Italian legislative decree governing IRAP
relating specifically to such intermediaries.
Banca Mediolanum subsequently requested repayment of that part of the IRAP,
arguing that the provision was contrary to EU law. The tax authorities rejected this
request, arguing that the said provision was not contrary to Directive 2011/96/EU.
The Italian court, before which the case is pending, has asked the Court of Justice for
an interpretation of that Directive.
Background Documents C-92/24
Background Documents C-93/24
Background Documents C-94/24
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Joined Cases C-71/23 P France v CWS Powder Coatings and Others
and C-82/23 P Commission v CWS Powder Coatings and Others
(Environment – Public health)
Titanium dioxide is used, in particular, in the form of a white pigment, in various
products, including paints, medicines, foodstuffs and toys.
In 2016, the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de
l’environnement et du travail (ANSES, France) submitted a proposal to the European
Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for the classification of titanium dioxide as an inhalation
carcinogen according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. The following year, ECHA’s
Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) adopted an opinion stating that it was justified
to classify this substance.
On the basis of this opinion, in 2019 the European Commission adopted a regulation
classifying and labelling titanium dioxide (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)
2020/217). More specifically, according to the Commission, this substance was
suspected of being carcinogenic to humans, by inhalation, in the form of a powder
containing 1% or more of particles with a diameter of 10 μm or less.
Various manufacturers, importers, downstream users and suppliers of titanium
dioxide challenged this classification and labelling before the General Court of the
European Union.
By judgment of 23 November 2022, the General Court annulled the contested
classification and labelling (T-279/20, T-288/20 and T-283/20, see also presse release
No 190/22).
In particular, it found that the Commission had committed a manifest error in
assessing the acceptability and reliability of a scientific study on which the
classification had been based.
France and the Commission have appealed to the Court of Justice against the
mentioned judgment of the General Court.
Background Documents C-71/23 P
Background Documents. C-82/23 P
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Case C-666/23 Volkswagen (Right to adequate compensation)
(Transport)
Two purchasers of Volkswagen diesel vehicles are claiming damages from Volkswagen
before a German court on the grounds that the vehicles are fitted with an allegedly
unlawful immobiliser.
This is a piece of software commonly referred to as a ‘temperature window’, which
reduces the rate of exhaust gas recirculation from an ambient temperature of 10
degrees Celsius, with the result that nitrogen oxide emissions increase.
In one of the two vehicles, this software was originally installed, while in the other, it
was installed as part of an update to the vehicle’s software.
Having regard to the arguments put forward by Volkswagen, on the one hand, and to
the judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice of June 26, 2023, on the other,
according to which a car manufacturer may rely, as a ground for exoneration from
liability, on the existence of an insurmountable error as to the unlawfulness of a
disabling device, the German court hearing the cases referred a number of questions
to the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of the relevant provisions of
Union law.
Background Documents C-666/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Case C-544/23 BAJI Trans
(Principles of Community law – Charter of Fundamental Rights – Social policy – Transport)
In Slovakia, a driver was fined €200 for transporting concrete on November 4, 2015 in
a vehicle whose tachograph had not undergone a valid periodic inspection. This
obligation stems from European regulations on recording equipment in road transport
(Regulation (EEC) no. 3821/85 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006).
The driver’s appeal against this penalty was rejected by the competent authority in
April 2017.
Unsuccessful before a regional court on the grounds that vehicles used for
transporting concrete could not benefit from an exemption, in July 2019 the employee
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
and the company Baji Trans appealed to the Supreme Court of Slovakia.
After this appeal was lodged, the European Union amended the applicable legal
framework. As a result of this amendment, the acts committed in November 2015 had
ceased to be unlawful. The appellants therefore invoked the principle of retroactivity
of the more lenient criminal law – known as lex mitior – in order to have the new, more
favourable rules applied to them, in accordance with the Constitution of the Slovak
Republic.
The Slovak court therefore decided to stay proceedings and to refer the matter to the
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
The Court wishes to know, in substance, whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union, and in particular Article 49 thereof, which enshrines the principle
of more lenient criminal law, should apply in the context of administrative penalties
imposed for infringement of Union law. The referring court also asked whether this
principle should be applied at all stages of the proceedings, including in the context of
an appeal in cassation.
Background Documents C-544/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 1st August
Judgment in Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing
(Principles of Community law – Charter of Fundamental Rights)
In 2015, a Belgian club, Royal Football Club Seraing (RFC Seraing), entered into
financing agreements with the Maltese company Doyen Sports, which provided for the
transfer to the latter of a share of the economic rights to some of its players. FIFA
considered that this type of agreement breached the ban on third parties holding
economic rights to players, and imposed a number of sanctions on the club, including
a ban on registering new players for several periods and a fine. These sanctions were
confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the world body for settling
sports-related disputes, and subsequently by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Challenging the compliance of FIFA’s rules with EU law, RFC Seraing then brought the
matter before the Belgian courts. The Belgian courts ruled that the CAS award was
final and res judicata and that they could not re-examine the question of compliance.
After hearing the case, the Belgian Cour de Cassation decided to refer a question to
the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
In essence, it asked the Court whether it was acceptable under EU law for national
Newsletter
Weeks XXX – XXXI: 21st July – 1st August 2025
courts to be prevented, by virtue of the principle of res judicata, from reviewing an
arbitration award that had been made by CAS and upheld by the Swiss Federal
Supreme Court, in other words a court of a third country that was not able to refer a
question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-600/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 1st August
Opinion in Case C-313/25 PPU Adrar
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Borders, asylum and immigration – Immigration
policy)
On September 11, 2024, GB, who affirms to be of Algerian nationality, applied for
asylum in the Netherlands. He did not appear at the hearing on the grounds for his
application. On October 7, 2024, the Minister rejected his application and issued a
return decision, which became final.
On March 26, 2025, GB was transferred to the Netherlands by the French authorities.
On the same day he made a subsequent application for international protection in the
Netherlands, which had the effect of suspending the enforcement of the return order,
and was detained.
On April 10, 2025, the detention order imposed on March 26, was lifted. However, a
new detention measure was ordered against him in order to remove him to Algeria to
enforce the return order. During the hearing prior to his detention, GB stated that he
feared he would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if
returned to Algeria, and that he was the father of a child born in France on September
18, 2024, whom he wanted to be able to look after.
The Dutch judge hearing the case and responsible for reviewing the lawfulness of the
detention wondered what the scope of his review was at this late stage in the
proceedings, when relevant facts and circumstances had arisen or come to light after
the adoption of the return order, which had become final. It was against this
background that he decided to put questions to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-313/25
There will be a press release for this case.