(AGENPARL) – Tue 02 September 2025 Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st– 12th September 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week XXXVI: 1st to 5th September
NEW! LIVE STREAMING OF GENERAL COURT DELIVERY OF JUDGMENTS
Starting this Wednesday 3rd September at 9:30, you can watch the General Court’s delivery
of judgments live for the first time! Tune in on the same page where you follow the Court of
Justice’s delivery of judgments and the reading of opinions:
Wednesday 3rd September
General Court
Judgment in Case T-348/23 Zalando v Commission
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
(Approximation of laws – Regulation of digital markets and services – Regulation of digital
services)
By decisions of 25 April 2023, the Commission designated, among others, the online
Download our
online platform’ (VLOP) within the meaning of the Digital Services Regulation.
store Zalando, a platform that sells fashion items and beauty products, as a ‘very large
The Commission considered that the average monthly number of active recipients of
the Zalando platform in the European Union exceeded the threshold of 45 million (or
10% of the EU population), namely more than 83 million.
The designation as VLOP entails that the platform in question is subject to additional
obligations, in particular to protect consumers and combat the dissemination of illegal
content.
All times are 9:30
(CET) unless
otherwise stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
Zalando challenged the designation of its platform as VLOP before the General Court
of the European Union.
Background Documents T-348/23
There will be a press release for this case.
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Wednesday 3rd September
General Court
Judgment in Case T-553/23 Latombe v Commission
(Principles of Union law – Protection of personal data)
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union enshrine the right of every individual to the
protection of their personal data.
On this basis, and in order to prevent the level of protection afforded within the EU
from being compromised, secondary Union law (Regulation – 2016/679 – EN – gdpr EUR-Lex) lays down rules applicable to international transfers of personal data. In
accordance with these rules, if the European Commission considers that a non-EU
country ensures an adequate level of protection, transfers of personal data to that
country may take place without additional authorisation, on the basis of the adequacy
decision adopted by the Commission.
Such a framework, established by the adequacy decision adopted by the Commission
on July 10, 2023 (the ‘contested decision’), exists between the European Union and the
United States of America. In the past, in the Schrems I (C-362/14, see also Press
Release No 117/15) and Schrems II (C-311/18, see also Press Release No 91/20)
judgments, the Court invalidated the two previous adequacy decisions concerning the
United States on the grounds that they did not guarantee a level of protection of
fundamental rights and freedoms substantially equivalent to that guaranteed by EU
law (Commission Decision 2000/520/EC and Commission Implementing Decision (EU)
2016/1250).
However, on October 7, 2022, the United States of America adopted a presidential
decree that strengthened privacy protection measures governing the activities of
intelligence agencies based in the United States. This executive order was
supplemented by a regulation from the Attorney General that amended the provisions
governing the creation and operation of the Data Protection Review Court (United
States of America, hereinafter ‘DPRC’). After examining these regulatory developments
in the United States, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which
establishes the new transatlantic framework for the flow of personal data between the
EU and the United States.
In this context, Mr Philippe Latombe, a French citizen who uses various IT platforms
that collect his personal data and transfer it to the United States, asked the General
Court to annul the contested decision. In his view, the DPRC is neither impartial nor
independent, but dependent on the executive branch. Furthermore, he considers that
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
the practice of US intelligence agencies of collecting bulk personal data in transit from
the EU without prior authorisation from a judge or independent administrative
authority is not regulated in a sufficiently clear and precise manner and is therefore
illegal.
Background Documents T-553/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 4th September
Judgment in Case C-413/23 P EDPS v SRB (Concept of personal data)
(Law governing the institutions – Principles of Union law – Protection of personal data)
Following the resolution of Banco Popular Español on June 7, 2017, the Single
Resolution Board (SRB) adopted a preliminary decision on whether to grant
compensation to the former shareholders and creditors of that bank as a result of the
resolution. As this decision was adopted without hearing these persons, the SRB
subsequently organised a procedure to enable them to submit comments on this
preliminary decision. As part of this procedure, the SRB transferred some of these
comments, in pseudonymised form, to Deloitte, an audit and consulting firm
commissioned by the SRB to assess the impact of the resolution procedure on
shareholders and creditors.
Several affected shareholders and creditors lodged complaints with the European
Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the grounds that the SRB had not informed
them that data concerning them would be transferred to third parties, namely
Deloitte. The EDPS considered that, in this case, Deloitte was a recipient of the
complainants’ personal data. Furthermore, it found that the SRB had breached the
information obligation laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. The SRB then brought
an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of the
EDPS’s decision. The General Court partially upheld the action and annulled the
decision in question.
The EDPS appealed to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-413/23 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
Thursday 4th September
Judgment in Case C-225/22 AW “T”
(Principles of Union Law – Fundamental Rights)
In a ruling dated October 20, 2021, the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs
Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court overturned a 2006 ruling, which had since
become final, prohibiting the sale of certain crossword puzzle magazines. The case
was referred back to a civil court for review.
That court noted that, due to irregularities in the procedure for appointing judges to
the relevant chamber of the Polish Supreme Court, the panel that delivered the
judgment of October 20, 2021 did not constitute a court within the meaning of EU law.
Consequently, there was no need to examine the effects of that judgment.
However, it remains uncertain as to whether it can control the composition of a higher
court. National regulations and the case law of the Polish Constitutional Court prohibit
it from reviewing the regularity of the appointment of judges, which means that it
must comply with the decision by which the case was referred back to it for review.
Needing clarification on EU law, the national court referred the matter to the Court of
Justice.
Background Documents C-225/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 4th September
Judgment in Case C-305/22 C.J. (Enforcement of a sentence following an EAW)
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters)
The case concerns a Romanian citizen convicted of a series of offences by the
Bucharest Court of Appeal and sentenced to four years and two months’
imprisonment in Romania. In November 2020, that court issued a European arrest
warrant against him. He was arrested shortly afterwards in Italy, but the Italian judicial
authorities refused to surrender him to the Romanian authorities. This person is
legally and effectively resident in Italy and the Italian authorities consider that serving
his sentence there will facilitate his social reintegration once he has served his
sentence. The Rome Court of Appeal therefore decided to recognise the conviction
handed down by the Bucharest Court of Appeal and to order its enforcement in Italy.
However, the Romanian judicial authorities opposed both the recognition of the
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
conviction and Italy’s assumption of responsibility for enforcing the sentence,
essentially for two reasons. Firstly, according to information provided by the Italian
judicial authorities, the length of the sentence to be served in Italy would be shorter
due to a deduction, made under Italian law, for the periods of detention already
served. Secondly, the sentence would take the form of house arrest rather than
imprisonment.
The Bucharest Court of Appeal therefore referred the matter to the Court of Justice in
order to determine, in essence, whether the Italian judicial authorities could refuse to
execute the European arrest warrant in this situation and whether the Romanian
judicial authorities had lost the right to enforce the sentence in Romania.
Background Documents C-305/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 4th September
Opinion in Case C-43/24 Shipov
(Non-Discrimination and Citizenship of the Union – Citizenship of the Union)
A Bulgarian citizen was registered at birth as male, with a name, personal identification
number and identity documents corresponding to that gender. She underwent
hormone treatment and now identifies as a woman. The discrepancy between her
female appearance and her official identity documents as a male causes her daily
inconvenience, particularly when looking for employment.
She brought the matter before the Bulgarian courts in order to have her female
gender recognised and to have her civil status data on her birth certificate amended.
Her application was rejected.
Bulgarian law, as interpreted by the national courts, does not provide for the
possibility of such a change of sex, name and personal identification number in civil
status records in this type of situation.
The Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation, to which the case was referred, has doubts
as to the compatibility of this legislation with EU law and has referred the matter to
the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-43/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
Thursday 4th September
Opinion in Case C-572/23 P Puigdemont i Casamajó e.a. / Parlement (Lifting of
parliamentary immunity)
(Law governing the Institutions – Privileges and Immunities)
Following the referendum on self-determination held in Catalonia (Spain) on October
1, 2017, the Spanish Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Spanish State Attorney and the
political party VOX brought criminal proceedings against several individuals, including
Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (then President of the Autonomous Government of
Catalonia), Antoni Comín i Oliveres and Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (members of the said
government at the time).
In March 2018, the Spanish Supreme Court charged Mr Puigdemont, Mr Comín and Ms
Ponsatí with alleged offences of rebellion and misappropriation of public funds. In July
2018, the court declared that the defendants had refused to appear in court after
fleeing Spain and suspended the criminal proceedings against them until they were
found.
Mr Puigdemont, Mr Comín and Ms Ponsatí subsequently stood as candidates in the
European Parliament elections held in Spain on May 26, 2019. Following those
elections, Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín were elected with effect from July 2, 2019.
In October 2019, arrest warrants were issued by the Spanish Supreme Court against
Mr Puigdemont, Mr Comín and Ms Ponsatí so that they could be tried in the criminal
proceedings in question.
In January 2020, the Spanish Supreme Court asked Parliament to waive the
parliamentary immunity of Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín.
Ms Ponsatí also became a Member of Parliament with effect from February 1, 2020.
The Spanish Supreme Court requested the waiver of her immunity on February 10,
2020, the same day that Parliament took note of her election.
By decisions of March 9, 2021, Parliament waived the immunity of the three Members.
They asked the General Court to annul those decisions.
In a ruling dated July 5, 2023, the General Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Mr
Puigdemont, Mr Comín and Ms Ponsatí against the Parliament’s decisions (T-272/21,
see also Press Release No. 114/23). The Members of Parliament challenged this ruling
before the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-572/23 P
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 4th September
Opinion in Case C-440/23 European Lotto and Betting et Deutsche Lotto- und
Sportwetten
(Freedom to provide Services)
Two Maltese companies, European Lotto and Betting Ltd. and Deutsche Lotto Und
Sportwetten Ltd., operate online “secondary lotteries” – betting on the outcome of
official lottery draws – and online slot machines from their offices in Malta. Through
their website, Lottoland.com, they directed their services towards several countries,
including Germany, while holding a Maltese gaming licence issued by the Malta
Gaming Authority but no equivalent licence under German gambling laws. Between
June 2019 and July 2021, a player residing in Erfurt (Germany) regularly participated in
these games of chance and lost significant sums of money under a gambling contract
concluded online with one of the companies.
The German player initially brought a claim before the Regional Court of Erfurt,
seeking restitution of the amounts lost, arguing that the services had been offered
illegally in Germany without the required local licence. While those proceedings were
still pending, the player assigned his claim to a third-party (anonymised as FB), who
later brought the case before a Maltese court. FB contends that the gambling contract
was illegal and void under German law, which would entail that the companies should
reimburse the stakes under the German Civil Code. The Maltese companies deny
liability, arguing that German restrictions on their activities breach the EU freedom to
provide services and that the claim constitutes an abuse of EU law. The Maltese court
has stayed proceedings and referred questions to the Court of Justice on these issues.
Background Documents C-440/23
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
Week XXXVII: 8th to 12th September
Wednesday 10th September
General Court
Judgment in Case T-625/22 Austria v Commission
(Environment)
In 2020, the EU legislature (i.e. the European Parliament and the Council of the
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
European Union) adopted the Taxonomy Regulation, establishing a framework to
promote sustainable investment. This regulation aims to channel financial flows
towards sustainable activities in order to achieve a climate-neutral EU by 2050
(European Climate Law). To this end, it establishes criteria for determining whether an
economic activity is considered environmentally sustainable for the purposes of
determining the degree of environmental sustainability of an investment.
In order to be considered sustainable, an economic activity must, according to the
taxonomy regulation, contribute substantially to one or more environmental
objectives without causing significant harm to any of those objectives, and comply with
certain technical screening criteria to be established by the European Commission.
The EU legislator has therefore delegated to the Commission the task of establishing
technical screening criteria to determine the conditions under which an economic
activity can be considered to contribute substantially to climate change mitigation or
adaptation and whether it causes significant harm to any of the other environmental
objectives. On that basis, in 2021, the Commission adopted a delegated regulation
establishing technical screening criteria for economic activities related to renewable
energy.
In 2022, the Commission adopted another delegated regulation, establishing technical
screening criteria for including certain activities in the nuclear energy and fossil gas
sectors in the categories of activities that make a substantial contribution to climate
change mitigation or adaptation.
Austria brought an action before the General Court of the European Union, seeking
the annulment of that delegated regulation.
Background Documents T-625/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 10th September
General Court
Judgments in Cases T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24
Tiktok Technology v Commission
(Approximation of Laws – Regulation of Digital Markets and Services)
The Digital Services Act (DSA) entrusts the European Commission with the task of
supervising providers of certain services, designated as very large platforms or very
large online search engines, once they exceed a significant minimum threshold of
users in the European Union. In order to cover the costs necessary for this purpose
Newsletter
Weeks XXXVI – XXVII: 1st – 12th September 2025
and to carry out these tasks, the Commission collects an annual fee from these
providers, which is calculated on the basis of the average monthly number of users of
each service concerned.
On March 2, 2023, the Commission adopted a delegated regulation supplementing the
DSA by laying down the method and procedures for supervisory fees.