Law360: Male customers of PensionBee saved an average of £507 more in pension schemes than women did in 2024, according to figures published by the retirement savings provider.

The concept that a person cannot discriminate against another person on the ground that he intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a gender reassignment.

This Practice Note details the procedure for applying for a gender recognition certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004), the process for appeals and registration and the effect of a GRC. It also considers how an application will be determined by a Gender Recognition Panel, requirements as to medical evidence and amendments to GRA 2004 made by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (M(SSC)A 2013) and the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/1458. Background The enactment of GRA 2004 on 4 April 2004 followed two decisions in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): Goodwin v United Kingdom and I v United Kingdom. In Goodwin, the ECtHR made it clear that the denial of the right of post-operative transsexuals to change their birth registration to record their reassigned sex, and the denial of their right to marry a person of the opposite sex to that reassigned gender, constituted breaches of Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In addition, that the situation no longer fell within the

Law360: A gender-critical barrister lost her appeal against Stonewall Equality Ltd on 24 July 2024 after failing to convince the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the LGBTQ+ charity had 'induced or attempted to induce' Garden Court Chambers into the discrimination she experienced.

This Practice Note provides examples of judgments in discrimination cases, in the context of employment, brought relying on the protected characteristic of philosophical belief which involve gender-critical and/or gender identity beliefs. The judgments are presented in a roughly chronological order. For more information on the protected characteristic of religious or philosophical belief, see Practice Note: Religion or belief. Forstater v CGD Europe In Forstater, the claimant was a researcher and writer who entered into consultancy agreements with the respondents. Ms Forstater wrote tweets concerning the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) which would allow people to self-identify their gender. Some of the respondents’ staff raised concerns about the tweets, alleging they were transphobic. When Ms Forstater’s consultancy positions were not renewed, she contended that the reason was the gender critical opinions she had expressed. She brought employment tribunal proceedings alleging direct discrimination on the grounds of a philosophical belief, and indirect sex discrimination. The original London Central Employment Tribunal decision in 2019 held that the particular belief

Law360: A gender-critical professor has persuaded an employment tribunal that a university harassed and discriminated against her based on her views before unfairly pushing her to resign.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Who is the General Chiropractic Council (GCC)? The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) is a body corporate created by the Chiropractors Act 1994 to have the general function of developing and regulating the profession of chiropractic with an over-arching objective of the protection of the public by: •  protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public • promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession of osteopathy; and • promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession The GCC is itself overseen by the Professional Standards Authority, see Practice Note: Professional Standards Authority [Archived]. This Practice Note provides a guide to GCC fitness to practise proceedings, investigations, reviews and appeals.. It is a criminal offence to use the title of ‘chiropractor, chiropractic practitioner, chiropractic physician, or any other kind of chiropractor’ without being registered with the GCC. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Common principles in fitness

The General Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has agreed on the tariff rate quota (TRQ) underfill mechanism on agricultural imports on 31 March 2022. This decision marks the end of discussions since the 2013 Understanding on Tariff Rate Quota Administration, which is commonly known as the Bali TRQ Decision, adopted at the 9th Ministerial Conference (MC9) of the WTO held in Bali, Indonesia. The agreement reached at the General Council will ensure that when the fill rate of a TRQ is below 65% for two consecutive years, or the fill rate is not reported by the importing member, the member may be required to change the TRQ to demonstrate that the market, and not administration, is contributing to the underfill.

The tables below lists completed competition General Court appeal cases relating to Article 101 TFEU. For ongoing General Court appeal cases, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals active before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker and for completed Court of Justice appeal cases relating to Article 101 TFEU, see Court of Justice Article 101 TFEU appeals—closed cases tracker. 2026 Case Issues Latest development Case T- 87/25 Westfälisches Textilwerk Adolf Ahlers v Commission Appeal of the Commission decision in Pierre Cardin (AT.40642)See Application • Judgment given—06/05/2026; appeal dismissed in its entirety• Hearing held—11/12/2025• Lodged—06/02/2025 Case T- 682/24 Red Bull and Others v Commission Appeal of the Commission decision on costs dated 23 October 2024 for failure to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate continuation of an inspectionSee Application • Judgment given—22/04/2026; appeal dismissed• Hearing held—20/01/2026• Lodged—31/12/2024Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 726/26 P Case T- 93/24 Lantmännen and Lantmännen Biorefineries v Commission Appeal of the Commission decision in Ethanol benchmarks (AT.40054), seeking annulment of

The tables below lists completed competition General Court appeal cases relating to Article 102 TFEU. For ongoing General Court appeal cases, see General Court appeals—ongoing cases tracker. For appeals active before the Court of Justice, see Court of Justice appeals—ongoing cases tracker and for completed Court of Justice appeal cases relating to Article 102 TFEU, see Court of Justice Article 102 appeals—closed cases tracker. 2025 Case Decision being appealed/issues Latest development Case T- 1129/23 Intel Corporation v Commission Appeal of the Commission’s decision in Intel Corporation (re-imposed fine) (AT.37990) re-imposing a fine of €376.36m on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominance in the market for x86 CPUs See Application • Judgment given—10/12/2025; appeal dismissed, but fine reduced• Lodged—01/12/2023Appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C- 143/26 P Joined Cases T- 417/22 Intel Corporation v Commission and T- 236/22 Intel v Commission Appeal of the Commission decision in Case T- 286/09 RENV Intel Corporation v Commission, seeking annulment of the infringement decision not to pay default interest to Intel for the period between the date of payment

For details regarding the progress of the DMA through the ordinary legislative procedure, see further, EU Digital Markets Act—progress tracker. 2026 Case name Decision being appealed Latest development Case T- 357/24 Opera Norway v Commission Appeal of the Commission decision in Case DMA.100028 for failing to designate Microsoft as a gate keeper under Article 2 of the DMA in relation to its web browser platform service Edge • Judgment given—01/09/2026; action dsimissed• Hearing held—22/10/2025 • Lodged—11/07/2024 Joined Cases T- 1079/23 Apple v Commission, T- 1080/23 Apple v Commission and T- 214/24 Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission Appeals of the Commission’s decisions

The table below tracks and summarises all appeals currently live before the General Court relating to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) (ie actions for annulment of Commission decisions). For details regarding the progress of the DMA through the ordinary legislative procedure, see further, EU Digital Markets Act—progress tracker. Ongoing cases Case name Decision being appealed Latest development Case T- 435/25 Meta Platforms v Commission Appeal