The table below lists completed national references to the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of the EU Merger Regulation since January 2013. For ongoing Court of Justice national reference cases see Court of Justice—ongoing national references. 2018 Case Issues Latest developments Case C- 633/16 Ernst & Young Reference from Danish court Clarification as to the application of the EU Merger Regulation’s standstill obligation

The table below lists completed national references to the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of Articles 101 and/or 102 and/or 106 TFEU since January 2013. For ongoing Court of Justice national reference cases, see Court of Justice—ongoing national references. 2026 Case Issues Latest developments Case C- 11/25 Jelgavas valstspilsētas pašvaldība Reference from Latvian courtClarification on the scope of Article 102 TFEU in the context of a decision to organise the provision of services through an in-house public procurement procedureApplication • Judgment given—10/09/2026; Court of Justice proposes that a municipality is not an undertaking when deciding how to organise municipal waste management services• Opinion given—12/03/2026; AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona proposes that the Court of Justice rule that, where a municipality acts in the exercise of its public authority prerogatives in organising municipal waste management services, it cannot be classified as an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU• Hearing held—10/12/2025• Lodged—09/01/2025 Case C- 60/25 Livronsa Reference from Italian courtClarification as to whether national courts must treat the Euribor manipulation

The table below lists national references before the Court of Justice currently live concerning the interpretation of Articles 101, 102 and 106 TFEU and the EU Merger Regulation (note—State aid cases are covered in the Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker). NOTE—completed references are moved from this document to the case trackers for closed references within seven days of the final court decision. For completed Court of Justice national reference cases see Court of Justice national references— closed cases tracker. Case Referring court/Issues Latest developments Reference from German courtTo be confirmed • Lodged—02/09/2026 Case C- 980/26 Visa Europe and VISA Reference from German courtTo be confirmed • Lodged—02/09/2026 Case C- 357/25 Groupama Asigurări Reference from Romania courtClarification on the application of Article 101 TFEU to exchanges of information between competitorsSee Application • Opinion given—09/07/2026; AG Rantos suggests exchange of general pricing information between insurers may constitute concerted practice depending on market context• Hearing held—22/04/2026• Lodged—28/05/2025 Case C- 347/25 Zapp Reference from German courtClarification as to whether Article 101 TFEU precludes a provision in national

Tax analysis: In Finanzamt T v S, the Court of Justice of the EU held that supplies between members of an EU VAT group were outside the scope of VAT irrespective of whether the effect of VAT grouping was a ‘loss of tax’.

EU Law analysis: In a landmark ruling, the Court of Justice recently affirmed the applicability of EU consumer protection law to contracts involving minors in the sports industry. The court found that a contractual term obliging a young athlete to transfer part of his income to a sports talent agency if he becomes a professional athlete may be considered unfair under Directive 93/13/EEC, the EU Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (EU UTCCD), if the clause is not plain and intelligible as regards the financial consequences of the commitment. The Court of Justice remains true to its principles on consumer protection issues and emphasizes once again the transparency requirement. As promising talents are being recruited at ever earlier ages, the decision is likely to have significant implications for practitioners particularly in the sports sector but also beyond the industry. While the Court of Justice generally allows such contracts and finds that a disproportion between the provided service and the remuneration does not lead to unfairness per se, talent development professionals must ensure that sports agent agreements with minors are drafted in accordance with consumer protection standards and adequately reflect the long-term interests of the athletes. Written by Robert Briske, M.mel., partner at Osborne Clarke (Berlin, Germany) and Jonas Müter, LL.M. (EMLE), associate at Osborne Clarke (Hamburg, Germany).

EU Law analysis: On 18 December 2025, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in this case, clarifying several fundamental aspects of EU design law under Regulation (EC) 6/2002. The decision provides important guidance on the requirements for design protection and the impact of fashion trends on the designer’s freedom. Written by Mareike Hunfeld, counsel at Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hamburg.

In relation to EU competition law, the Court of Justice hears appeals against judgments of the General Court and also

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice has provided important clarification concerning a consumer’s right to withdraw from two common categories of personal (ie consumer) vehicle finance agreements negotiated via the intermediary of the supplying dealer on the latter’s premises. In each instance, the financial accommodation was provided by banks controlled by the manufacturer of the vehicles supplied, for whom the dealer was acting. Written by Kevin de Haan KC, joint head of Chambers at Gough Square Chambers.

EU Law analysis: In a referral from the German Federal Court, the Court of Justice made a preliminary ruling on the meaning of a ‘promotional offer’ in Article 6(c) of Directive 2000/31/EC, the EU E-Commerce Directive, which may affect the advertising of a range of deferred buying and payment arrangements advertised when making online purchases. It held that ‘promotional offer’ must be interpreted as covering an advertising message on a website which refers to a payment arrangement, if this provides an object advantage to consumers which may influence buying decisions. This therefore carries with it the requirement to provide clear information to consumers on the terms and conditions relating to the ‘promotion’. In the underlying German case, although the ruling does not provide detail on the ‘user journey’ when using the website in question, it seems the need for consumers to undergo a credit check was only disclosed during the ordering process, not in the earlier promotion of this payment facility on the website. Written by Beverley Whittaker, consultant at Stevens & Bolton LLP.

Life Sciences analysis: The Court of Justice has refused a request for a preliminary ruling in relation to the interpretation of Article 3(b) of Regulation (EC) 469/2009 concerning supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products (the SPC Regulation), because the referred question was ‘hypothetical’. In this article, Sebastian Moore, Martina Maffei and Priyanka Madan discuss the Court of Justice’s refusal to decide on the referral and its potential impact on business.

The Vice President of the Court of Justice has, on the European Commission’s appeal, rejected the President of the General Court’s order to suspend Amazon’s obligation to make its advertisement repository publicly available as a very large online platform (VLOP). In balancing all the interests involved, the Vice President considered Amazon’s arguments on the order limiting its freedom to conduct business and the serious and irreparable harm it caused in the absence of a suspension. By also considering the fact that Amazon’s existence or long-term development would not be jeopardised in the absence of a suspension and that a suspension would delay the full achievement of the objectives of the EU Digital Services Act (EU DSA), the Vice President concluded that the interests defended by the EU legislature prevail over Amazon’s interests, resulting in the rejection of the request for suspension.

Public Law analysis: The Court of Justice has found that Italian domestic public procurement legislation requiring the automatic exclusion of a tenderer, when a contracting authority discovers during the tender stage that the tenderer’s nominated subcontractor has violated labour and social laws, infringes the principle of proportionality. Written by Andrew Dean, director of Public Law at Clifford Chance.