Documents : Union européenne

316 838 documents
2261

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#Sof Medica S.A. v Spitalul Clinic Judeţean de Urgenţă Cluj-Napoca.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Article 18 – Principles of procurement – Equal treatment and transparency – Article 42 – Technical specifications – Discretion of the contracting authority – Definition of need – Reference to a type or to a specific production – Situations in which such a reference must be accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’.#Case C-568/24.

cjeu_case ·
2262

Arrêt de la Cour (deuxième chambre) du 16 avril 2026.#Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. contre Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Environnement – Pollution atmosphérique – Système d’échange de quotas d’émission de gaz à effet de serre – Directive 2003/87/CE – Règles transitoires concernant la délivrance de quotas à titre gratuit – Article 10 bis – Réglementation nationale soumettant les exploitants bénéficiant d’une quantité importante de quotas alloués à titre gratuit à une taxe sur les émissions de dioxyde de carbone (CO2).#Affaire C-519/24.

cjeu_case ·
2263

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Air pollution – System for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Directive 2003/87/EC – Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation – Article 10a – National legislation imposing a tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on operators receiving a significant quantity of allowances allocated free of charge.#Case C-519/24.

cjeu_case ·
2264

Arrêt de la Cour (deuxième chambre) du 16 avril 2026.#Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding et Stichting de Thuiskopie contre HP Nederland BV e.a.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Rapprochement des législations – Propriété intellectuelle – Droit d’auteur et droits voisins – Directive 2001/29/CE – Article 2 – Droit de reproduction – Article 3, paragraphe 1 – Droit de communication d’œuvres au public – Article 5, paragraphe 2, sous b) – Exception dite de “copie privée” – Compensation équitable – Service de streaming payant – Copie pour lecture en continu hors ligne – Article 5, paragraphe 5.#Affaire C-496/24.

cjeu_case ·
2265

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding and Stichting de Thuiskopie v HP Nederland BV and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Intellectual property – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 2 – Reproduction right – Article 3(1) – Right of communication to the public of works – Art. 5(2)(b) – ‘Private copying’ exception – Fair compensation – Paid streaming service – Offline streaming copy – Article 5(5).#Case C-496/24.

cjeu_case ·
2266

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși v European Public Prosecutor’s Office.#Appeal – Institutional law – Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 – European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) – Article 42(1) – Procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties – Judicial review carried out by national courts – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to review the legality of EU acts – Article 86(2) and (3) TFEU – Exercise of the functions of prosecutor in the national courts – Power of the EU legislature to determine the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO – Derogation not authorised in Article 263 TFEU – None – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – Infringement – None – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court.#Case C-328/24 P.

cjeu_case ·
2267

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși v European Public Prosecutor’s Office.#Appeal – Institutional law – Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 – European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) – Article 42(1) – Procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties – Judicial review carried out by the national courts – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to review the legality of EU acts – Article 86(2) and (3) TFEU – Exercise of the functions of prosecutor in the national courts – Power of the EU legislature to determine the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO – Derogation not authorised in Article 263 TFEU – None – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – Infringement – None – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court.#Case C-328/24 P.

cjeu_case ·
2268

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#TK and OP v Riksåklagaren.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Single market for financial services – Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 – Market abuse – Insider dealing – Article 7(1)(a) – Concept of ‘inside information’ – Criteria – Public information – Article 17 – Public disclosure of inside information by an issuer – Decision of a contracting authority not to award a public contract to a tenderer – Early sale of shares of that tenderer – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1055 – Article 2 – Means for public disclosure of inside information.#Case C-229/24.

cjeu_case ·
2269

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#TK and OP v Riksåklagaren.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Single market for financial services – Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 – Market abuse – Insider dealing – Article 7(1)(a) – Concept of ‘inside information’ – Criteria – Public information – Article 17 – Public disclosure of inside information by an issuer – Decision of a contracting authority not to award a public contract to a tenderer – Early sale of shares of that tenderer – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1055 – Article 2 – Means for public disclosure of inside information.#Case C-229/24.

cjeu_case ·
2270

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#NE and Others v An Coimisiún Pleanála, anciennement An Bord Pleanála and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 12 – System of strict protection for certain animal species – Article 16 – Decision to grant a derogation in anticipation of a planning permission application for a project covered by Directive 2011/92/EU – Article 11 – Aarhus Convention – Article 9 – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Derogation decision classified as an autonomous legal act – Procedural rules providing for a three-month period for seeking the annulment of a derogation licence.#Case C-58/24.

cjeu_case ·
2271

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#NE and Others v An Coimisiún Pleanála, anciennement An Bord Pleanála and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Irlande).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 12 – System of strict protection for certain animal species – Article 16 – Decision to grant a derogation in anticipation of a planning permission application for a project covered by Directive 2011/92/EU – Article 11 – Aarhus Convention – Article 9 – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Derogation decision classified as an autonomous legal act – Procedural rules providing for a three-month period for seeking the annulment of a derogation licence.#Case C-58/24.

cjeu_case ·
2272

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#X and Others v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides.#References for a preliminary ruling – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Application for international protection – Article 43 – Border procedure – Classification of a procedure conducted in a place of detention located geographically in the territory of a Member State, but treated by national law as a place at the border – Right to enter the territory of that Member State after a period of four weeks – Article 31(7) – Priority examination of an application for international protection – Directive 2013/33/EU – Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection – Article 8 – Detention in the same place on the basis of two different decisions.#Joined Cases C-50/24 to C-56/24.

cjeu_case ·
2273

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026.#X and Others v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers.#References for a preliminary ruling – Border controls, asylum and immigration – Directive 2013/32/EU – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Application for international protection – Article 43 – Border procedure – Classification of a procedure conducted in a place of detention located geographically in the territory of a Member State, but treated by national law as a place at the border – Right to enter the territory of that Member State after a period of four weeks – Article 31(7) – Priority examination of an application for international protection – Directive 2013/33/EU – Standards for the reception of applicants for international protection – Article 8 – Detention in the same place on the basis of two different decisions.#Joined Cases C-50/24 to C-55/24.

cjeu_case ·
2276

Case C-901/24, Falucka: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 April 2026 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – mBank S.A. v TK, DJ and JJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Effects of a term being found to be unfair – Invalidity of the contract – Actions for restitution – Limitation period for the action brought by the seller or supplier – Interruption of the limitation period – Acknowledgement by a consumer of his or her debt owed to a credit institution – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of proportionality – Right of access to a court – Unjust enrichment)

cjeu_case ·
2278

Case C-753/24, Rzepacz: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 April 2026 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A. v MS and MS (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Effects of a term being found to be unfair – Invalidity of the loan agreement – Actions for restitution – Limitation period for the action brought by the seller or supplier – Circumstances that may justify disregarding the expiry of the limitation period – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of proportionality – Right of access to a court – Unjust enrichment)

cjeu_case ·
2279

Case C-752/24, Jangielak: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 April 2026 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie – Poland) – mBank S.A. v KŁ, JŁ (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Effects of a term being found to be unfair – Invalidity of the loan agreement – Actions for restitution – Limitation period for the action brought by the seller or supplier – Interruption of the limitation period – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of proportionality – Right of access to a court – Unjust enrichment)

cjeu_case ·
2280

Case C-642/24: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 April 2026 – Commission v Germany (Bavarian family allowance) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Coordination of social security systems – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Articles 4, 7 and 67 – Freedom of movement of workers – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Article 7 – Equal treatment – Social and tax advantages – Family benefits – Adjustment of amounts on the basis of the cost of living in the children’s Member State of residence)

cjeu_case ·