TMT analysis: In a landmark decision, the Court of Justice ruled that the 1991 Software Directive (Directive 91/250/EC), allows licensees to decompile a licensed computer program, to the extent decompilation is necessary to correct errors in the program. Decompilation is the reverse process of compilation, aiming at creating human-readable (and editable) source code from the machine-readable object code (also known as binary code). The right to decompile for error correction is however strictly limited and applies only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program. This case concerned the provisions of the repealed Directive 91/250/EC but the relevant Articles are substantively identical to those contained in the current Software Directive (Directive 2009/24/EC). Written by Hakim Haouideg, partner at Fieldfisher.

The tables below list completed Court of Justice appeals in relation to claims for non-contractual liability of EU institutions arising out of competition cases. For references from national courts, see Court of Justice—ongoing national references. 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. 2024 Case Judgment being appealed/issues Latest development Case C- 221/22 P Commission v Deutsche Telekom Appeal against the General Court's judgment in Case T- 610/19 partially upholding an action seeking compensation from the Commission for overpayment of a fine imposed in Slovak Telekom (and Deutsche Telekom)—broadband in Slovakia (COMP/39.523) See Application • Judgment given—11/06/2024; appeal dismissed• Opinion delivered—23/11/2023; AG Collins proposed that the Court of Justice allow the appeal and set aside the General Court judgment• Hearing held—12/07/2023•

EU Law analysis: In its decision on 27 February 2025 in the Lastre case, the Court of Justice handed down its long-awaited first judgment on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention. Guillaume Croisant, Claudia Cavicchioli and Nicole Rölike, counsels, and Alexia Kaztaridou and Julie Esquenazi, associate, of Linklaters LLP, discuss the ruling. The details of the decision and any possible impact, in particular the requirement for the clause to be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States, will need to be analysed more closely.

The role of the Court of Protection Visitor is a long-standing one, which operated under the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Act 1983 in the form of the 'Lord Chancellor's Visitors' and is also recognised by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). A Court of Protection Visitor is defined in the MCA 2005 Code of Practice as: 'Someone who is appointed to report to the Court of Protection on how attorneys or deputies are carrying out their duties.' Court of Protection Visitors have also been described as 'the eyes and ears of the court'. Court of Protection Visitors play a particularly important role where there are no relatives or friends who can act as a deputy or report problems to the court. Appointment and qualifications Court of Protection Visitors are not officers of the court although they are appointed by the court. MCA 2005, s 61 provides for two categories of Court of Protection Visitor: • A Special Visitor, who must be a qualified medical practitioner or be otherwise suitably qualified or trained to fulfil

Private Client analysis: The Court of Protection authorised high-risk spinal surgery and prolonged elective ventilation for an 18-year-old lacking capacity, confirming that such treatment was in his best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). Mr Justice Poole applied Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James, weighing the grave surgical and post-operative risks against the substantial benefits of improved mobility, comfort, and life expectancy. The judgment underscores the court’s role in objectively resolving finely balanced medical treatment decisions, providing assurance to clinicians and families while clarifying that elective intensive care may, in exceptional cases, be justified for patients with profound disabilities. Practical implications written by Victoria Butler-Cole KC of 39 Essex Chambers.

ARCHIVED: This tracker has been archived and is no longer maintained. For a summary of Court of Protection cases for the year 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy This case concerned P, an adult who suffered from a brain injury following an accident and was entitled to a significant personal injury claim. P's mother was appointed as his property and affairs deputy by the Court of Protection. This decision concerned an application to revoke the deputyship. This case had been going on for a very long time. In previous proceedings, an application to withhold ‘closed material’ from P’s parents was approved in order to progress capacity assessments, for a summary of this decision, see here. Following this earlier decision, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court was any the wiser as to P's wellbeing or even his whereabouts.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Protection (HHJ Hilder) held that decisions about a protected party’s internet and social media use are not encompassed within a standard-form welfare deputyship authority to decide whether the person should take part in ‘particular leisure or social activities’. The court rejected a ‘maximalist’ reading of welfare deputyship powers, affirming that such powers must be expressly conferred and are to be limited in scope and duration under section 16(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). The court declined to vary the existing deputyship to add authority over internet/social media, finding that such decisions are better taken through the MCA’s collaborative best‑interests framework or by the court where required. Obiter, the court confirmed that the Court of Protection retains power to make best‑interests decisions even where a deputy has authority and is willing and able to act. Written by Amy Berry TEP, barrister, New Square Chambers.

Local Government analysis: In this case, Mr Justice Hayden considered the position in relation to the situation where a local authority wishes to cease being a property and affairs deputy, and have a professional deputy appointed. Written by Alex Ruck Keene, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.

Private Client analysis: Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation Ltd v KS & Orsraises important questions about the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Protection in England and Wales (EWCOP). It is the first time that the EWCOP has had to decide whether it has jurisdiction to make orders about the property and affairs of a child under 16 who is habitually resident abroad, and what happens to a deputyship when a protected party moves abroad. Written by Alice Collier, senior associate at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

Private Client analysis: In the latest case to deal with the challenges posed by fluctuating capacity, the Court of Protection (Mrs Justice Theis) granted anticipatory declarations sought by a local authority regarding the care of KZ, a profoundly deaf young man. Where KZ’s capacity fluctuated but the periods of incapacity were clear, such anticipatory declarations were the most appropriate response. An earlier assessment that KZ totally lacked capacity had failed to take account of his needs as a deaf person. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

Private Client analysis: The Court of Protection approved a six-month interim forced marriage protection order (FMPO) over AG and invoked the inherent jurisdiction to regulate contact between AG and her parents, in circumstances where there was evidence of parental control and coercion, a risk of AG travelling abroad for ‘a wedding’, and evidence that AG might lose her capacity regarding decisions about contact with her parents were she to have as much contact with her parents as her parents wished. The travel guidance approved by the court may be of assistance in other similar cases, as may the roadmap of the interim-FMPO and orders made under the inherent jurisdiction, albeit the circumstances of this case, at least as related to the use of invocation inherent jurisdiction, were ‘unusual’. Written by Katherine Hampshire, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn.

Private Client analysis: This judgment provides a walk through best interests (ie wishes, feelings, beliefs and values) decision making for those suffering with anorexia nervosa (AN). Balancing the strong presumption of prolongation of life derived from article 2.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) (preservation of life, life sustaining treatment, ie force feeding—a truly hateful process), against euthanasia and the prohibition on a desire to bring about death in section 4(5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) (permission to attend hospice to die). A must read. Written by Amy Berry, barrister and mediator at New Square Chambers.