Tag: CJEU

Editorial of July 2025

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

Backtracking on green claims? the EU’s fight against greenwashing at a crossroads

Ana Carcau (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)

In March 2023, the European Commission presented the long-awaited proposal for a Green Claims Directive,[1] a legislative initiative designed to bring transparency and credibility to environmental claims made by companies across the European Union (EU). By targeting misleading environmental claims and demanding clear, science-based substantiation, the proposal aimed to restore consumer trust and ensure that the growing market for sustainable products was based on truth rather than illusion.[2] In short, it was widely seen as a cornerstone of the European Green Deal,[3] designed not only to inform but to empower consumers, protect genuinely sustainable companies and create a level playing field across the Single Market.[4]

However, recent reports suggest that the proposal now faces political and institutional limbo. On the 20th of June, reports emerged that the Commission was considering formally withdrawing the proposal, citing concerns over the potential regulatory burden on microenterprises, which number around 30 million across the EU. Although no formal withdrawal has occurred, the Commission confirmed that such a step remains on the table if Member States and the Parliament cannot agree on a carve-out for these businesses. Negotiations between co-legislators were suspended just before a crucial trilogue meeting scheduled for the 23rd of June, following growing resistance from several national governments and the center-right European People’s Party. With Italy retracting its support and no compromise in sight, the Polish Presidency of the Council has now effectively paused the legislative process indefinitely.[5]

Amid legislative gridlock and concerns about administrative burden, this retreat, or threat thereof, raises serious concerns about the EU’s regulatory resolve in the face of industry lobbying, political fatigue and an evolving institutional landscape. If the proposed Green Claims Directive is ultimately withdrawn, it will mark a significant step backwards in the EU’s fight against deceptive green marketing and could send a troubling signal about the fragility of the EU’s green legislative momentum at a time when it should be accelerating.[6] 

Continue reading “Editorial of July 2025” →

Pfizergate: the billion euro silence and the future of EU transparency

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
João Pedro Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

The role of transparency in EU Law

Transparency within the European Union’s constitutional order is not a matter of institutional courtesy or political goodwill: it is a binding legal obligation anchored in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU). The EU’s legitimacy as a supranational legal order is not derived solely from formal democratic representation, but from its ability to guarantee open governance, accountability, and legal certainty. These principles converge in the citizen’s right of access to documents, which is both a general principle of EU law and a fundamental right under Article 42 CFREU.[1] Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 operationalises this right, setting the legal framework for public access to the documents of the EU institutions.[2] Article 11(2) TEU, which mandates the Union institutions to maintain an open, transparent, and regular dialogue with civil society, reinforces the legal architecture of transparency, a requirement that becomes especially salient when decisions involve significant public expenditure and health policy.

Against this normative backdrop, the judgment delivered by the General Court (GC) in Case T‑36/23 on 14 May 2025,[3] publicly referred to as “Pfizergate”, emerged as a pivotal episode in the evolution of EU transparency law. [4] The dispute was triggered by a request submitted by journalist Matina Stevi of The New York Times, seeking access to text messages allegedly exchanged between the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer.[5] The messages were reportedly exchanged during negotiations that led to a contract for the procurement of 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine, amounting to approximately €35 billion in public expenditure, plus an additional €2.4 billion in related contracts. The Commission’s refusal to grant access to these communications, on the grounds that they were not in its possession, raised fundamental questions about the scope of transparency obligations and the nature of institutional accountability during states of emergency. [6]

Continue reading “Pfizergate: the billion euro silence and the future of EU transparency” →

Summaries of judgments: Stevi and the New York Times v Commission

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

Judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber), 14 May 2025,

Case T-36/23 Stevi and The New York Times v Commission

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the text messages exchanged between the President of the Commission and the chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer – Refusal to grant access – Presumption of veracity associated with the declaration of lack of possession of documents – Absence of plausible explanations making it possible to establish the reasons for non-existence or lack of possession – Retention of documents – Principle of good administration

Facts

The General Court (hereinafter “GC”), sitting as grand chamber, upheld the action brought by Ms Matina Stevi, journalist of The New York Times, and by The New York Times Company, and annulled the final decision of the European Commission rejecting Ms Stevi’s request for access to all the text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022, as part of the Commission’s purchase of vaccines from Pfizer in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its decision (hereinafter “the contested decision”), sent to Ms Stevi on 16 November 2022 and adopted in accordance with the detailed rules for the application of Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,[1] the Commission stated that, since it did not hold any document corresponding to the description given in the initial application, it was not in a position to grant that application.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Stevi and the New York Times v Commission” →

Protecting fundamental rights through the infringement procedure: Advocate General’s Opinion in CJEU Case C-769/22 “Commission v. Hungary”

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
Gonçalo Martins de Matos (Master in Judiciary Law by the University of Minho | Member of the Editorial Support of this blog)

There is a very relevant case regarding the defence of fundamental rights being processed at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): an infringement procedure moved against Hungary by the European Commission on the grounds of breaching Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It is a relevant case because it is the first case to frame abuses of fundamental rights by Hungarian authorities as an overarching systemic problem, instead of the usual sectorial and solitary breaches. This case might open up the infringement procedure to a valuable role of a fundamental rights protection mechanism,[1] as it has been defended by legal scholars and practitioners. And that role is very important in the context of rule of law backsliding and recent democratic erosion.

Fundamental rights are of elementary importance in the European Union (EU)’s legal order. As a matter of fact, the EU is axiologically based on a set of values ​​common to its Member States, namely respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, enshrined in Article 2 TEU and self-imposed as an objective of the Union itself, according to Article 3(1) TEU. It is this conception of the EU as a community of values ​​that contributes to the construction of the “society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail” referred to in the second part of Article 2 TEU. More than a community of values, the EU creates law to which its legal and institutional framework, its Member States and its citizens are bound, resulting in the notion that the Union submits to the principles that itself created. From this notion we conclude that the EU conceives itself as a Union subjected to the Law, in which the exercise of European public power is linked to EU law. We are in presence of the principle of the rule of law translated into the logic of the EU: the principle of the Union of Law, which functions as a limit to the actions of European institutions and a guarantee of the rights of individuals attributed by European provisions.

Continue reading “Protecting fundamental rights through the infringement procedure: Advocate General’s Opinion in CJEU Case C-769/22 “Commission v. Hungary”” →

Summaries of judgments: Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  | Case T-307/22 A2B Connect and Others v Council

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 5 february 2025

Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  

Law governing the institutions – Partial failure to comply with an order of the Court of Justice imposing interim measures in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations – Periodic penalty payment – Recovery of amounts receivable by offsetting – Article 101(1) and Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Jurisdiction of the General Court

Facts

On 1 April 2021, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations before the Court of Justice against Poland, seeking a declaration that certain legislative amendments to the organisation of the judicial system in Poland, adopted in December 2019, infringed EU law.

In the course of those proceedings, the Court required Poland, inter alia, to suspend the application of certain national provisions challenged by the Commission. Not having implemented that interim measure, Poland was ordered, on 27 October 2021, to pay the Commission a daily penalty payment of one million euro. That daily penalty payment began to run as of 3 November 2021.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  | Case T-307/22 A2B Connect and Others v Council” →

Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
João Pedro Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Preliminary considerations

Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It guarantees that judges are free from external pressures – whether from the executive, legislative branches, or private interests –, allowing them to adjudicate cases impartially and fairly. In the European Union (EU) context, judicial independence transcends the internal affairs of Member States; it is an essential safeguard to ensure the full application of EU law and effective judicial protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently emphasised that national courts act as “European courts”,[1] applying and upholding EU law within their jurisdictions. Consequently, any impairment to the judicial independence in a Member State poses a national constitutional issue and a direct threat to the European legal order.[2]

The recent joined cases C-146/23 (Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku) and C-374/23[3] (Adoreikė) come at a pivotal moment as concerns over the rule of law rise in certain Member States. These joined cases addressed whether budgetary measures impacting the remuneration of judges in Poland and Lithuania, introduced through national legislation, violated EU law by undermining judicial independence. Their significance is heightened by the fact that they coincide with the seventh anniversary of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment [Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (ASJP)],[4] a landmark case that firmly established judicial independence as a fundamental element of the rule of law under EU law. As highlighted in a recent analysis on this blog, understanding the legacy of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment is essential to contextualising the challenges facing the judiciary today.[5] 

Continue reading “Judicial independence and judges’ remuneration: echoes of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment in the joined cases C-146/23 and C-374/23” →

7 years of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment – understanding where we come from so we know where we are going

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment
Free Close-up of a wooden judge's gavel on a black desk, symbolizing justice and law. Stock Photo
Juan Gálvez Galisteo (PhD student at the University of Seville, undertaking a research stay at the University of Minho)

I.

27 February 2018. This is the date on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its landmark judgment in the “Portuguese Judges” case [Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (ASJP)].[1] Seven years have passed since that crucial judgment in the ongoing process of European integration. Was its importance foreseeable at the time? Could anyone have predicted that it would have such a profound impact on democratic coexistence within the European Union (EU)? What consequences did this judgment have? Does it still have an impact in the current European context? What considerations should be weighed up for the future?

This text aims to analyse these issues, albeit briefly, in order to contribute to and encourage the academic debate on the constitutionalisation of the European Union and the defence of its values, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), with special attention, for obvious reasons, to the rule of law.

Continue reading “7 years of the “Portuguese Judges” judgment – understanding where we come from so we know where we are going” →

Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl v Commission

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 18 December 2024,

Case T-776/22 TP v Commission

Public procurement – Financial Regulation – Exclusion from the proceedings of awarding of public contracts and the concession of grants financed by the Union’s budget and by the European Development Fund (EDF) for a period of two years – Significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations in the implementation of a prior contract – Article 136 (1)(e) of the Financial Regulation – No automatic link between a finding of a failure to comply with contractual obligations by the court having jurisdiction over the contract and the adoption of an exclusion measure by the authorising officer responsible – Obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the conduct of the person concerned – Prior contract awarded to a group of economic operators – Joint and several contractual liability

Facts

The General Court (henceforth “GC”), ruling in extended composition, ruled, for the first time, on the question of whether article 136(1)(e) of Regulation 2018/1046[1] (henceforth “Regulation”) imposes on the authorising officer responsible, in order to apply contractual sanctions, the obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the behaviour of the person concerned before deciding to exclude from participating in award procedures.

The European Commission (henceforth “Commission”) organized a procurement procedure for the award of a public works contract concerning the upgrading of a facility. The contract was awarded in 5 October 2009 to the consortium composed by the company TP, the applicant, and its partner company. The works began in November 2009 and were concluded two years later.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl v Commission” →

Compensation for unlawful data transfers: The T-354/22 judgment (Bindl v. Commission) in perspective

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
João Pedro Sousa (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Introduction

Protecting personal data is a cornerstone of the European Union (EU) legal framework, safeguarded by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), especially since the entry into force of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This regulation aims to ensure citizens’ privacy and establish clear standards for using personal data by both public and private entities.[1] However, international data transfer became particularly prominent, specifically after the Schrems II case exposed vulnerabilities in transatlantic data protection relations and the consequent annulment of the Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).[2]

The judgment in case T-354/22, of January 8, 2025, known as Bindl v. Commission, delivered by the General Court (GC),[3] represents a milestone in strengthening the guarantees provided by the GDPR. For the first time, the European Commission was ordered to pay compensation for moral damages resulting from infringing stringent data protection laws.[4] This case, initiated by an EU citizen, concerns the improper transfer of personal data of users of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CFE) website to the United States (US), in violation of the regulation.[5]

Continue reading “Compensation for unlawful data transfers: The T-354/22 judgment (Bindl v. Commission) in perspective” →

Summaries of judgments: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol | KUBERA

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judge and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, Case C-633/22, EU:C:2024:843

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Articles 34 and 45 – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Revocation of a declaration of enforceability of judgments – Grounds for refusal – Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought – Penalty imposed on a newspaper and one of its journalists for harm caused to the reputation of a sports club – Damages – Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Freedom of the press.

Facts

In 2014, the newspaper Le Monde and one of its journalists were convicted in Spain for the publication in 2006 of an article claiming that the football club Real Madrid had retained the services of the head of a doping ring in the cycling world. The Spanish court ordered them to pay EUR 300 000 to Real Madrid and EUR 30 000 to a member of the medical team of that club, by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol | KUBERA” →