TMT analysis: This case concerns whether collective management organisations (CMOs) have the right to bring copyright infringement proceedings in the EU on behalf of rights holders. Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC (the Enforcement Directive) lists natural and legal persons that may seek the application of civil enforcement measures, but is subject to the conditions that CMOs must be deemed by the relevant national law to have both a direct interest in the proceedings; and, legal standing. The Court of Justice confirmed that CMOs do not necessarily have a direct interest (and therefore the right to bring, in their own name, actions for copyright infringement on behalf of the rights holders) just because rights holders have conferred on CMOs the right to manage and distribute revenues. It is at the discretion of Member States to determine whether such an interest exists. Similarly, legal standing does not derive from the Enforcement Directive itself but must arise from either an express provision in applicable Member State law or under the general procedural rules of the relevant Member State. Written by Parisa Fard, associate, and Sean Bullock, trainee solicitor, at Bird & Bird LLP.

Tax analysis: In SC Adient Ltd & Co KG, the Court of Justice held that a company cannot be deemed to have a fixed establishment for VAT purposes solely due to a group relationship or exclusive service contract with another company.

EU Law analysis: In JX v FTI Touristik GmbH, the Court of Justice clarified the scope of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast) Regulation, ruling that a consumer domiciled in a Member State could bring a claim against a company domiciled in the same Member State, provided there is a cross-border element, such as the destination of the service being abroad. The court held that the Regulation not only determines international jurisdiction but also directly confers territorial jurisdiction to the courts of the consumer's domicile, overriding national civil procedural rules that would otherwise require litigation at the company’s place of domicile. This decision is particularly significant for consumer protection in cross-border disputes and has broad implications for businesses and legal practitioners across the EU. Written by Alexander Schmalenberger, Knowledge Lawyer at Taylor Wessing, Hamburg.

Commercial analysis: The Court of Justice ruled that the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU (CRD), must be interpreted as meaning that a trade fair stand, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, at which the trader carries out its activity for a few days each year, constitutes ‘business premises’ under the CRD if, in the light of all the factual circumstances surrounding that activity, in particular the appearance of the stand and the information relayed on the premises of the fair itself, a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect consumer could reasonably assume that the trader is carrying out its activity there and will solicit him in order to conclude a contract.

Law360, London: Europe's highest court ruled on 4 September 2025 that the question over whether a product infringes on design rights does not need to be answered by a technical expert, saying an informed user should be able to make the call in a dispute over protections for Lego pieces.

Life Sciences analysis: The Court of Justice has followed a judicial trend in its judgment upholding that Member States are precluded by EU law (Articles 34 and 36 TFEU) from national legislation which restricts the parallel import of generic medicines merely because the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product has expired in the importing country (Poland) causing national pharmacovigilance practices to cease, without assessing if there are any public health risks. Helpful guidance on how national authorities might assess public health risks is provided. The Court of Justice reviewed the pharmacovigilance system and continues to construe justifications for national restrictions narrowly.

EU law analysis: Boriana Guimberteau, partner, and Pauline Desjours, associate, of Stephenson Harwood AARPI, consider the request for a preliminary ruling involving Google before the Court of Justice on the articulation of copyright rules and generative AI technologies.

The Court of Justice has upheld the judgment of the EU's General Court in Case C-134/19 P, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council. Bank Refah Kargaran appealed a December 2018 decision by the General Court which dismissed the Bank's claim seeking compensation from the EU over losses suffered from sanctions that were annulled by the General Court in 2013. The Advocate General advised in his opinion in this case that the Court of Justice has 'jurisdiction to review decisions taken by the European Council on EU Common Foreign and Security Policy matters'. The Court of Justice considered the damages claims against the European Union over its enforcement of nuclear sanctions against Iran and held that 'having found that the error of law vitiating the General Court’s assessment of the scope of its jurisdiction did not warrant the annulment of the judgment under appeal, in so far as its operative part was well founded, the Court of Justice dismisses the appeal in its entirety.'

Law360, London: An adviser to the Court of Justice said on 27 March 2025 that it should uphold €60.5m in fines against Teva and its subsidiary Cephalon for an alleged conspiracy to keep a generic version of Provigil off the shelves.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Justice has consistently interpreted the concept ‘the place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7(2) as extending to both the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred and the place where the damage occurred. However, that concept cannot be construed so widely as to encompass any place where the effects of an event, which has caused damage elsewhere, can be felt. Written by David Fisher, a barrister and an associate member of New Square Chambers.

EU Law analysis: This case concerns the lawfulness of mandatory collecting of customers’ titles, and incidentally their gender identity, when booking a train ticket. The Court of Justice ruled that such data collection (i) is not strictly necessary for the performance of a transport service contract and (ii) subject to an in-depth assessment of the national court, may not be justified by a valid legitimate interest of the transport company. This decision emphasises the need for any data controller to reassess its data collection practices, especially concerning personal identifiers that may not be essential for its services delivery. Written by March Schuler, partner at Taylor Wessing France, and Laura Huck, associate at Taylor Wessing France.

IP analysis: The Court of Justice has confirmed that Article 9(5) of Directive 2004/48/EC precludes national legislation permitting provisional intellectual property injunctions to remain in force indefinitely where the applicant has failed to commence proceedings on the merits and the defendant seeks their revocation. The judgment rejects the long-standing Italian approach to ‘anticipatory’ injunctions and reinforces the procedural safeguards available to defendants. Rights holders enforcing intellectual property rights in Italy will need to review their litigation strategy, as interim relief can no longer be relied upon to secure de facto permanent protection without pursuing substantive proceedings, although revocation still depends upon an application by the defendant. Produced in partnership with Robert Briske M.mel, partner at Osborne Clarke in Berlin and Jonas Müter, LL.M. (EMLE), associate at Osborne Clarke in Hamburg.