Ireland—Banking & Financial Services analysis: This article, was written by Padraic Kinsella, Deirdre O’Donovan and David Maughan of William Fry LLP and discusses the CJEU's ruling on asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, confirming their validity within the EU and Lugano Convention states under the Brussels Recast Regulation. However, it raises concerns about clauses allowing one party to sue in any court, including non-EU ones, due to potential conflicts with legal certainty and transparency.

In GL v AB SpA C-38/24 [Bervidi], the claimant was an Italian station operator who repeatedly asked her employer to appoint her permanently to a position with fixed working hours to enable her to care for her severely disabled son, who lived with her and needed to follow a care programme at a fixed time in the afternoon. The employer did not grant her requests, but provided her with some reasonable accommodations on a provisional basis.

The  International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) has acknowledged the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Royal Football Club Seraing v FIFA et al (Case C-600/23), which confirms that arbitral awards issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by courts in EU Member States when they concern matters of EU public policy. Rupert Beloff, Barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square and Kings Chambers, comments on the implications of this decision below.

Tax analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Finanzamt T v S deals with the question of whether supplies of service made for consideration between legally independent persons closely connected by financial, economic and organisational relations should be subject to VAT and whether the entitlement to deduct input VAT, ought to be taken into consideration in this determination. The CJEU determined that supplies of services between members of the same VAT group are outside the scope of VAT, irrespective of whether the effect of VAT grouping created a ‘risk of tax losses’. The CJEU also ruled that this is the position, even if the members of the VAT group perform activities that do not entitle them to deduct input VAT. Written by Katherine Traynor, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has delivered its judgment in BPC Lux 2 Sàrl & ors v Banco de Portugal & ors (Case C-83/20). The judgment follows a request for a preliminary ruling concerning, among other things, the interpretation of Articles 36, 73 and 74 of the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/EU (EU BRRD), made in the context of litigation between multiple parties collectively referred to as BPC Lux 2, as well as Massa Insolvente and Banco de Portugal, Banco Espírito Santo (BES) and Novo Banco SA, regarding the decision taken by Banco de Portugal, Portugal’s central bank, in August 2014, to proceed with the resolution of BES, one of the main credit institutions in the Portuguese banking system.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has delivered its judgment in Banco Santander, SA v JAC and MCPR (Case C-410/20). The judgment follows a request for a preliminary ruling concerning, among other things, the interpretation the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive 2014/59/EU (EU BRRD), made in the context of a dispute between investors in Banco Popular Español SA (Banco Popular) and Banco Santander SA, in its capacity as successor to Banco Popular, as to Banco Santander’s liability for defective information provided in the Banco Popular prospectus issued pursuant to the Prospectus Directive 2003/71/EC, on the basis of which those investors subscribed for Banco Popular shares. The CJEU ruled that the Banco Popular investors are precluded from bringing an action for liability against Banco Santander under Article 6 of the Prospectus Directive based on defective information provided in the prospectus, nor can they seek to annul the share subscription contract, in the circumstances where either action was brought after the closing of the resolution of Banco Popular.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has published the opinion of Advocate General (AG) Collins in the case of European Commission v Malta, which considers citizenship by investment. Under the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment scheme, foreign investors could apply to be naturalised if they fulfilled certain conditions, principally relating to financial matters. In the case, the European Commission (the Commission) seeks a declaration that Malta failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) concerning EU citizenship and the principle of sincere cooperation, because the scheme offers naturalisation in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments to persons who do not have a genuine link to the Republic of Malta. The AG recommends to the court that the European Commission 'failed to prove that EU rules on citizenship (Article 20 TFEU) require a 'genuine link' or 'prior genuine link' between a Member State and an individual must exist in order for it to grant citizenship'. He notes that Member States have decided that it is for each of them alone to determine who is entitled to be one of their nationals and, as a consequence, who is an EU citizen.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has published a report outlining its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy. In the report, the CJEU has covered topics including the definition and typology of AI, as well as the CJEU’s journey in exploring the possibilities afforded by AI. It has outlined three goals, namely to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative and judicial processes; enhance the quality and consistency of judicial decisions and increase access to justice and transparency for EU citizens. The CJEU has also outlined its AI principles as well as risks and possible mitigation strategies.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held in Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung, Case C‑258/24 that a catholic association cannot dismiss an employee on the sole ground that the employee has left the catholic church where the occupational requirement to remain a member is not genuine, legitimate and justified in light of the organisation’s ethos. The court found that, as Katholische Schwangerschaftsberatung employs non‑catholics for the same pregnancy counselling roles, leaving the church does not, in principle, call into question its ethos or autonomy, and such a difference in treatment directly based on religion may be precluded under EU equal treatment rules. It is for the German Federal Labour Court to assess whether the association can show a probable and substantial risk to its ethos.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has dismissed Austria's challenge to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214, which classifies certain nuclear and fossil gas activities as sustainable investments under the Regulation (EU) 2020/852. Austria argued that these sectors should not be considered environmentally sustainable due to their associated risks and environmental impacts. However, the Court held that the Commission acted within its delegated powers and was entitled to conclude that, under specific conditions, nuclear and fossil gas activities can contribute meaningfully to climate change mitigation and adaptation. It emphasised that nuclear energy produces near-zero greenhouse gas emissions and that no economically viable low-carbon alternatives currently exist at sufficient scale to meet continuous energy demand.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has held that a jurisdiction clause set out in general terms and conditions rather than the contract can be a valid jurisdiction clause if there has been explicit reference to the terms and conditions. It also held that where a jurisdiction clause provides for the courts of a city, rather than a Member State, to have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute this is a valid jurisdiction agreement under the provisions in article 23 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I).

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on the ability of ‘new’ EU Member States to apply EU regulations as well as considering the interpretation to be applied to the term ‘counterclaim’ in article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I). The interpetation will apply to Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)).