Law360, London: The EU overstepped by passing a law requiring employers to pay staff an 'adequate minimum wage', an adviser to the Court of Justice said on 14 January 2025 amid Denmark's quest to revoke the Minimum Wage Directive.

IP analysis: The Court of Justice ruled that a Community design application may claim priority from an international application filed under the PCT only if the subject of the international application in question is a utility model, and that the time period for doing so is six months. The ruling indicates more generally that Community designs may not claim priority from patent applications, averting the need for the significant practice changes by the EUIPO that had been threatened by the ruling of the General Court and the opinion of the Advocate General. The Court of Justice also concluded that Article 4 of the Paris Convention does not have direct effect in the legal order of the EU, but that Article 41 of Regulation (EC) 6/2002, which implements the right of priority for registered Community designs (RCDs), had to be interpreted as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules set out by the articles of that convention. Written by Chris Anderson, senior associate, and Luca Colombo, partner at Gill Jennings & Every LLP.

Public Law analysis: It is 11 years since the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in European Commission v Germany, creating the so-called ‘Hamburg’ exemption for public-to-public agreements, later codified in Article 12(4) of the Public Procurement Directive (Directive 2014/24/EU) and regulation 12(7) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015). In Remondis, the Court of Justice returned to grapple with the exemption in the context of another German waste agreement. In this case, brought as a preliminary reference from the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz, the Court of Justice looked beyond the purported reciprocal obligations in an agreement, and concluded that their purpose was an agreement for services, akin to an outsourcing arrangement. In the absence of effective cooperation between the parties, or a common strategy to jointly provide public services, there was insufficient cooperation for the Hamburg exemption to apply. Written by Oliver Carroll, associate, and Fraser Eccles, trainee, at Clifford Chance LLP.

The tables below lists competition appeal cases currently live (lodged or heard post 01/01/2012) before the Court of Justice relating to Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU and the EU Merger Regulation. For references from national courts, see Court of Justice national references—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals active before the General Court, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Note—completed appeals are moved from this document to the case trackers for closed appeals within seven days of the final court decision. For completed Court of Justice appeals, see Court of Justice Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker, Court of Justice Article 102 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker and Court of Justice EUMR appeals—closed cases tracker. NOTE—this tracker does not track State aid. For State aid appeals, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker and Court of Justice State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals relating to Article 101 TFEU Case Judgment being appealed/issues Latest development Case C- 726/26 P Red Bull and Others v Commission Appeal of the General Court’s judgment in Case T- 682/24 dismissing an

Law360, London: The Court of Justice has clarified the eligibility of utilitarian objects for copyright protection, ruling 4 December 2025 that applied art is no different from other subject matter when it comes to assessing originality.

EU law analysis: On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice ruled in Case C-438/23 that EU law precludes Member States from adopting national measures that prohibit the use of meat-related terms for plant-based products unless a legal designation for such products is established. The Court held that the harmonisation provided by Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers (FIC Regulation) prevents Member States from setting thresholds for plant proteins to allow limited use of meat-related terms. This decision is significant for practitioners in food law and consumer protection, as it underscores the primacy of EU regulations in ensuring consistent consumer information and preventing market fragmentation. The ruling also highlights the need for clear legal designations to avoid misleading consumers while promoting fair competition in the food industry. Written by Nicolas Carbonnelle, partner at Bird & Bird LLP.

IP analysis: The Court of Justice has provided guidance on the meaning of ‘cable retransmission’ and the scope of the cable retransmission right under Directive 93/83/EEC (the SatCab Directive). The Court of Justice held that the ‘simultaneous, unaltered and unabridged distribution of television or radio programmes broadcast by satellite and intended for reception by the public’ does not constitute cable retransmission for the purposes of that Directive if that retransmission is carried out by a person other than a cable operator (with ‘cable operator’ given its traditional meaning). It follows that a broadcasting organisation will not be able to assert its cable retransmission right under the SatCab Directive unless the person carrying out the relevant retransmission would be considered an operator of a traditional cable network. Although it remains open to Member States to provide broader protections, the Court of Justice held that the SatCab Directive does not require Member States to provide an exclusive right for broadcasting organisations to authorise or prohibit cable retransmission. Written by Sarah Hopton, senior associate, and Jade Anya, trainee solicitor, at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

IP analysis: The Court of Justice has clarified the meaning of ‘in the course of trade’ for activities carried out by a private individual, rather than a business. It has held that a person who does not engage in trade as an occupation, who takes delivery of, releases for free circulation in a Member State and retains goods that are manifestly not intended for private use, where those goods were sent to his or her address from a third country and where a trade mark, without the consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, is affixed to those goods, must be regarded as using that trade mark in the course of trade, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC.

Law360, London: The Court of Justice of the EU ruled 15 January 2026 that the EU's laws permit national legislation that requires electronics retailers to pay levies to copyright holders on the grounds that people might use their devices to make copies of protected material.

Intellectual Property analysis: This judgment concerns a request for a preliminary ruling made by the Federal Court of Justice in Germany to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice held that Article 1(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/24/EC (the ‘Software Directive’) is to be interpreted narrowly in relation to computer programs. The case concerns the Sony PSP software, and add-on software created by a third party Datel (called Action Replay DSR and Tilt FX) which allow additional in-game features for users—examples of products sometimes known as ‘cheat codes’ or ‘cheat software’. The Court of Justice’s key finding held that, so long as the modifications to the game is produced by content of locally-stored variables that does not allow for the reproduction or subsequent alterations of the program (ie the underlying source or object code), this falls outside the boundaries of infringement under the Software Directive. Although this judgment is consistent with the ordinary constraints of copyright legislation, it provides valuable guidance to businesses whose operating models are based on the creation of complementary software to those owned by other companies. Written by Lakmal Walawage, partner and head of department, and Stephanie Ooi, solicitor apprentice/paralegal at JMW Solicitors LLP.

Life Sciences analysis: The Court of Justice provided clarification of the meaning of ‘advertising of medicinal products’ under Directive 2001/83 (the Directive), in the context of various promotional schemes offered by pharmacists. It stated that the offer of discounts or payments on the purchase of unspecified prescription-only medicines (POMs), merely influences the choice of pharmacy from which a customer purchases such medicines and does not constitute advertising within the scope of the Directive. In contrast, advertising measures that reward the purchase of unspecified POMs by providing vouchers for the subsequent purchase of non-prescription medicines, promotes such subsequent purchases and is therefore categorized as advertising under the Directive. The court also considered whether restrictions on promotional schemes for medicines advertised electronically are consistent with EU law on free movement of goods and e-commerce. It confirmed that, despite their greater impact on mail order pharmacies established in other Member States, such restrictions could nevertheless be permissible when introduced for protection of public health. Written by Adela Williams, partner and Heba Jalil, associate at Arnold & Porter.

The Court of Justice delivered its judgment on 12 October 2023 in Case C‑670/21 BA v Finanzamt X. It was concluded that Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding German national law which provides that, for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax, developed immovable property forming part of personal assets which is located in a non-Member State other than a State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) of 2 May 1992 and is let for residential purposes is assessed at its full market value, whereas property of the same nature which is located within the national territory, in another Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement on the EEA is assessed, for the purposes of that calculation, at 90% of its market value.