This post reviews selected judgments delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in October 2026 concerning unfair terms in tenancy, telecommunications and investment contracts, air passenger compensation, and refunds for unauthorised payments. It outlines the disputes, the Court’s findings and their practical implications for consumers and businesses.

Court of Justice Rules Unfair Legal Cost Clauses Do Not Protect Unsuccessful Consumers from Paying Standard National Court Costs

In its judgment of 1 October 2026 (Case C-459/25, Stichting Woonstichting Lieven de Key v BS), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, alongside the principle of effectiveness.

The case arose from a dispute in the Netherlands between a housing foundation and a tenant concerning a lease agreement containing a clause that required the tenant to pay all judicial and extrajudicial costs in the event of a breach. When the tenant failed to pay rent, the lessor initiated legal proceedings. While the national court classified the cost clause as unfair and void, it questioned whether EU law prohibited ordering the unsuccessful consumer to pay standard legal costs under national procedural rules.

The Court ruled that Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 do not preclude an unsuccessful consumer from being ordered to pay legal costs in accordance with national procedural law governing the allocation and taxation of costs. The CJEU emphasized that general national procedural rules on court costs, featuring statutory ceilings on lawyers fees and judicial powers of moderation, are not supplementary contractual provisions meant to replace unfair clauses, but rather rules governing judicial proceedings.

Overall, the ruling clarifies that while unfair penalty clauses cannot be used to saddle consumers with unlimited legal expenses, national procedural cost rules remain fully applicable, provided they respect the principle of effectiveness by preventing overly high costs that would deter consumers from asserting their rights under EU law.

Court of Justice Rules Exorbitant Late Payment Penalties and Early Termination Fees in Telecom Contracts Can Be Declared Unfair

In its judgment of 8 October 2026 (Joined Cases C-872/24 and C-909/24, Digi România and Investcapital), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 3(1) and (3), 4(2), 6(1), and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, alongside point 1(e) of its annex.

The cases arose from disputes in Romania between electronic communications operators and consumers regarding contracts containing daily late-payment penalties amounting to massive annual rates, as well as clauses requiring consumers to pay all remaining monthly instalments upon early termination within a 24-month minimum commitment period.

The Court ruled that Directive 93/13 applies fully to electronic communications services, allowing national courts to declare disproportionate daily late-payment penalties and early termination fee clauses unfair. Furthermore, the CJEU emphasized that national courts must completely exclude unfair penalty clauses without being permitted to revise or reduce their amount.

Overall, the ruling reinforces robust consumer protections in the telecommunications sector, preventing suppliers from imposing exorbitant daily default penalties or forcing consumers to pay unadjusted remaining balances upon early contract termination.

Court of Justice Rules Air Traffic Management Decisions Do Not Automatically Qualify as Extraordinary Circumstances Without Examining Underlying Reasons

In its judgment of 8 October 2026 in Case C 108 26 RX (Review in D S.A. v P S.A.), the Court of Justice of the European Union reviewed a General Court judgment concerning Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passenger compensation.

The review arose from a passenger dispute over a long flight delay caused partly by an air traffic management slot allocation decision resulting from adverse weather conditions on a preceding rotation flight, and partly by a technical fault. The General Court had previously ruled that an air traffic management decision alone could constitute an extraordinary circumstance regardless of the underlying reason.

The Court of Justice ruled that an air traffic management decision cannot, in itself and irrespective of the reasons for it, constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Instead, courts must examine the underlying reason for the decision, such as adverse weather, on a case by case basis to determine if it is non inherent to normal carrier activity and beyond its control. The Court also confirmed that carriers may rely on extraordinary circumstances affecting a previous flight in the same rotation, provided a direct causal link exists.

Overall, the ruling protects passenger rights by preventing air carriers from escaping compensation obligations through a mere reliance on air traffic management decisions, requiring proof of the actual extraordinary nature of the underlying cause.

Court of Justice Rules Investment Fund Articles of Association Governing Certificate Redemptions Are Subject to EU Consumer Unfair Terms Law

In its judgment of 15 October 2026 (Case C-63/25, K. Sz. and Others v Z. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty, in liquidation), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 1(1), 2(b) and (c), and 3(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

The case arose from a dispute in Poland where individual investors purchased investment certificates in a closed-end investment fund and later sought their redemption. When the fund refused the redemption requests based on a provision in its articles of association allowing it to reduce such requests, the investors challenged the clause as an unlawful consumer term under national law.

The Court ruled that provisions in the articles of association of a closed-end investment fund defining the conditions for the redemption of investment certificates fall within the scope of Directive 93/13 when acquired by participants for non-professional purposes, thereby establishing a consumer contract relationship. Furthermore, such redemption clauses must be regarded as non-negotiable standard terms subject to fairness review under the directive.

Overall, the ruling ensures that investment funds cannot shield restrictive redemption terms from unfairness scrutiny simply by embedding them within their articles of association, reinforcing robust consumer protections for retail investors.

Court of Justice Rules Banks Cannot Refuse Immediate Refunds for Unauthorized Payments Based on Alleged Consumer Gross Negligence

In its judgment of 15 October 2026 (Case C-70/25, N.O. v PKO BP S.A.), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 73(1) and 74(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2) on payment services in the internal market.

The case arose from a dispute in Poland where a consumer fell victim to a phishing attack, resulting in an unauthorized money transfer authorized through an SMS confirmation code. When the account holder requested a refund, the bank refused, claiming that the consumer had facilitated the transaction through gross negligence by failing to secure her security credentials.

The Court ruled that Directive 2015/2366 precludes a payment service provider from refusing to immediately refund the amount of an unauthorized payment transaction on the ground that the payer made the transaction possible through gross negligence. The CJEU emphasized that the strict obligation to provide an immediate refund under Article 73 allows for only one specific exception concerning suspected fraud communicated to authorities, while the rules on consumer liability for gross negligence under Article 74 operate at a later stage and do not justify withholding immediate restitution.

Overall, the ruling strengthens consumer protection in digital banking, ensuring that payment service providers cannot circumvent their duty of immediate refund by unilaterally withholding funds based on unverified allegations of customer negligence.

July and September 2026 saw a number of relevant judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressing important issues in consumer law. These decisions contribute to clarifying the interpretation of EU directives and regulations and further develop core principles such as consumer protection, legal certainty, and market fairness. Below is an overview of rulings delivered in these months, highlighting their practical implications for businesses, consumers, and regulators across the EU.

Court of Justice Clarifies Limitation Periods for Bank Restitution Claims Following Nullification of Unfair Consumer Contracts

In its judgment of 2 July 2026 (Joined Cases C-261/25 and C-262/25, Bank BPH and Raiffeisen Bank International), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interpreted Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, alongside the principles of effectiveness, proportionality, and legal certainty.

The cases arose from disputes between banks and consumers in Poland regarding mortgage loan agreements denominated in foreign currency that were declared null and void due to unfair terms. While consumers successfully sought the restitution of all payments made, the referring court sought guidance on when the limitation period begins for banks to bring counter-claims for the restitution of the original loan capital.

The Court ruled that EU law does not preclude national legal interpretations where the limitation period for a seller or supplier’s (bank’s) claim for restitution of undue payments, arising from a contract rendered void by unfair terms, begins to run from the date on which the consumer first challenged the binding nature of those terms or the contract before the bank.

The CJEU emphasized that because a contract cannot become void without the consumer’s will, a bank cannot have a valid claim for restitution before the consumer expresses an intent to invalidate the agreement. Starting the limitation period from the moment of the initial challenge ensures a fair balance between the parties, respects the principle of proportionality, prevents unjust enrichment, and satisfies legal certainty by providing clear foreseeability for both lenders and consumers.

General Court Rules Public Bodies Granting Housing Loans Qualify as “Sellers or Suppliers” under Consumer Protection Law

In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-188/25, Štátny fond rozvoja bývania v GL, KL, and SC), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified the broad scope of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts regarding public bodies and reinforced the principle of the primacy of EU law.

The case concerned a dispute between the State Housing Development Fund (ŠFRB), a public body in Slovakia providing preferential housing loans for social policy purposes, and several borrowers and guarantors whose loans were terminated early. While a national supreme court had previously ruled that the fund was exempt from consumer protection rules because it acted in the public interest on a not-for-profit basis, the regional court sought guidance from the CJEU.

The Court ruled that a public body established to carry out housing assistance through preferential loans is a “seller or supplier” under Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13, provided the loan agreements fall within the scope of its professional activity. The CJEU emphasized that the functional definition of a seller or supplier encompasses entities pursuing tasks in the public interest, and the not-for-profit nature of an organization cannot deprive natural persons of their protective rights.

Crucially, the Court held that under the principle of the primacy of EU law, a lower national court, even when bound by domestic procedural rules to follow the legal rulings of a higher court, must disregard those rulings if they conflict with an interpretation of EU law provided by the CJEU via a preliminary ruling.

Overall, the ruling reinforces strong consumer protection standards across the public sector, ensuring that citizens utilizing state-backed housing programs enjoy identical protections against unfair terms as those dealing with commercial banks, while overriding conflicting national judicial hierarchies.

Court of Justice Rules Streaming Services Qualify as “Digital Services” Subject to Right of Withdrawal

In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-234/25, Sky Österreich Fernsehen v Verein für Konsumenteninformation), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the distinction between digital content and digital services under Directive 2011/83/EU. The case involved an Austrian dispute where streaming provider Sky required subscribers to waive their 14-day withdrawal right upfront, classifying streaming as exempt digital content, while consumer association VKI argued it was a digital service.

The Court ruled that streaming services where consumers access digital data live, on demand, or offline constitute digital services rather than digital content, provided the offering is dynamic and goes beyond the mere stable supply of specific files. Unlike static digital content, streaming platforms feature continuous involvement, regular updates, tailored recommendations, and flexible access.

Because streaming qualifies as a digital service, companies cannot automatically strip consumers of their statutory 14-day right of withdrawal. However, the Court noted that traders remain protected against abuse, as consumers who cancel during the withdrawal period must pay proportionate compensation based on the economic value of the content actually consumed.

Court of Justice Rules Safety Defects Do Not Automatically Justify Contract Termination

In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (Case C-307/25, KFZ Kolak v GF), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 13(4)(c) of Directive (EU) 2019/771 on contracts for the sale of goods, clarifying the conditions under which a consumer can immediately terminate a sales contract or demand a price reduction due to a lack of conformity. The case arose from a dispute in Austria concerning the purchase of an eight-year-old second-hand vehicle that was found to have an engine oil leak affecting road safety, a defect that could nonetheless be rectified at a relatively low financial cost. Although the seller offered to repair the vehicle, the buyer demanded the immediate termination of the contract and a full refund.

The Court ruled that a lack of conformity relating to the safety of goods does not automatically have to be classified as serious under Article 13(4)(c) so as to justify an immediate price reduction or contract termination if the defect can be rectified relatively inexpensively. The CJEU emphasized that Directive 2019/771 aims to strike a balance between high consumer protection and enterprise competitiveness, meaning that denying the seller any opportunity to repair an easily fixable defect would upset the statutory hierarchy of remedies that normally prioritizes repair or replacement.

Furthermore, the Court noted that immediate termination is reserved for defects of such gravity that the consumer can no longer objectively maintain confidence in the seller’s ability to bring the goods into conformity, requiring a case-by-case assessment of factors such as the nature of the defect, the age and type of the goods, the cost of repair, and the seller’s conduct. Overall, the ruling provides a pragmatic interpretation of consumer sales law, protecting sellers’ rights to remedy easily fixable defects while preventing consumers from abusing minor or inexpensive flaws to instantly cancel contracts.

Court of Justice Rules Automatic Set-Off of Bank Claims in Void Mortgage Contracts Does Not Violate EU Law

In its judgment of 10 September 2026 (Case C-510/25, T.Z. and D.Z. v Bank S.A.), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, addressing how reciprocal financial claims must be settled when a mortgage loan is declared void due to unfair terms.

The case originated from a dispute in Poland between borrowers and a bank regarding a foreign-currency-denominated mortgage loan. When the contract was found to be invalid, a legal debate arose over whether national courts could automatically offset the bank’s right to recover the original loan capital against the consumer’s right to recover past payments (known as the “balance theory”), or whether the parties must pursue separate, independent claims (the “two claims theory”). The Polish referring court questioned whether automatic, court-driven set-offs disadvantaged consumers by limiting their claims and interest to amounts exceeding the initial capital lent.

The Court ruled that EU law does not preclude a judicial interpretation of national law under which a court proceeds to offset the reciprocal claims of the consumer and the bank of its own motion. The CJEU emphasized that while Directive 93/13 requires robust consumer protection and effective restitutory effects, it does not mandate a specific procedural mechanism for settling accounts after a contract is annulled, leaving Member States to apply their procedural autonomy.

Furthermore, the Court noted that automatic set-off ensures mutual restitution and prevents unjust enrichment for both parties, provided that the national court guarantees the consumer’s right to default interest on any excess amount, informs the consumer transparently of the legal consequences, and ensures that procedural costs do not deter consumers from asserting their rights under EU law. Overall, the ruling provides vital procedural flexibility for national courts, confirming that balancing reciprocal debts in annulled consumer contracts complies with European standards as long as the core protections of Directive 93/13 are fully upheld.

Court of Justice Rules Telecom Code Does Not Grant Unilateral Right to Change Contract Terms

In its judgment of 10 September 2026 (Case C-669/24, Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband v Vodafone), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the first subparagraph of Article 105(4) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (the European Electronic Communications Code), clarifying whether telecommunications providers have an automatic legal right to modify consumer contracts unilaterally. The case arose from a German consumer protection lawsuit challenging Vodafone’s general terms, which allowed the provider to change contract conditions at its discretion, subject to fairness considerations and a termination right. The provider argued that the EU Telecom Code inherently granted this right, shielding it from stricter national consumer protection reviews.

The Court ruled that the Telecom Code does not grant electronic communications providers the right to change contractual conditions unilaterally. Instead, the CJEU explained that Article 105(4) merely governs the legal consequences, specifically the end user’s right to terminate the contract without cost, when a provider exercises such a right.

The Court emphasized that the legal basis for making unilateral changes must be established by other rules under EU or national law, and that such terms remain fully subject to rigorous consumer protection frameworks like Directive 93/13 on unfair terms.

Overall, the ruling ensures that telecom providers cannot bypass national laws or consumer safeguards by misinterpreting EU termination rules as a blanket authorization.

Court of Justice Rules Energy Suppliers Cannot Unilaterally Fix Unfair Price Clauses or Limit Consumers’ Retroactive Claims

In its judgment of 24 September 2026 (Case C-900/24, SVB v Glarner Straße 5 GbR), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, severely restricting energy suppliers from modifying void pricing terms or blocking consumers from recovering long-standing overpayments.

The case arose from a long-term district heating supply contract in Germany containing opaque price adjustment clauses. When the consumer challenged the clauses as unfair and demanded a reimbursement of past overpayments spanning several years, the supplier relied on national case-law, known as the “three-year rule”, which prevents consumers from challenging price increases if not contested within three years. Additionally, the supplier attempted to unilaterally replace the void pricing clause with a supposedly compliant one.

The Court ruled that Directive 93/13 precludes national legislation or judicial practices under which an energy supply contract remains bound by price increases unless the consumer challenged them within a strict three-year window. The CJEU emphasized that maintaining the effects of an unfair pricing clause undermines the core restitutory and deterrent objectives of EU consumer protection law.

Furthermore, the Court held that suppliers cannot unilaterally amend or replace an unfair price adjustment clause with future effect. Such practices would rob the invalidation of its dissuasive effect, leaving suppliers free to use unfair terms secure in the knowledge that courts could simply rewrite the contract for them. Overall, the ruling reinforces robust consumer rights in long-term utility contracts, ensuring full retroactive reimbursement for unfair price hikes and banning unilateral corporate contract repairs.

Court of Justice Rules Contracts Concluded Off-Premises via Pre-Sent Offers Still Grant Withdrawal Rights

In its judgment of 24 September 2026 (Case C-381/25, PL and GQ v Gexx aeroSol), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 2(8)(a) of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, clarifying the definition of an off-premises contract when a trader sends a written offer in advance that is later accepted by the consumer away from business premises. The case involved German consumers who signed a contract for a photovoltaic system at home after receiving a written offer from the solar company. When the consumers later attempted to exercise their 14-day right of withdrawal, the company argued that the contract did not qualify as off-premises because the offer was sent beforehand.

The Court ruled that a contract constitutes an off-premises contract whenever it is concluded in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer away from the trader’s business premises, even if a written offer was sent in advance. The CJEU explained that under EU law, a contract is concluded upon acceptance, and as long as that final acceptance occurs away from business premises, the statutory definition is met.

The Court emphasized that the core rationale for off-premises protection is the potential psychological pressure consumers face when dealing face-to-face with a trader at home. Even if an advance offer removes the element of surprise, the physical presence of the trader during final acceptance still exposes the consumer to undue pressure, meaning prior paperwork does not strip consumers of their statutory withdrawal rights.

June 2026 saw a number of relevant judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressing important issues in consumer law. These decisions contribute to clarifying the interpretation of EU directives and regulations and further develop core principles such as consumer protection, legal certainty, and market fairness. Below is an overview of rulings delivered in this month, highlighting their practical implications for businesses, consumers, and regulators across the EU.

General Court Annuls Meta’s Marketplace Designation under the Digital Markets Act

In its judgment of 3 June 2026 (Case T-1078/23, Meta Platforms, Inc. v European Commission), the General Court of the European Union clarified the limits the Commission faces when classifying and designating core platform services under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The case concerned a Commission decision designating Meta as a gatekeeper and classifying its services, Messenger and Marketplace, as distinct core platform services and important gateways for business users to reach end users.

The Court held that while the designation of Messenger was valid, the Commission made an error of law regarding Marketplace. The Court clarified that the qualitative assessment for classifying a service must be based on the factual circumstances existing at the exact time of the decision’s adoption, rather than being restricted to the retrospective three-year period used for calculating quantitative thresholds.

Importantly, the Court stressed that the Commission failed in its obligation to state reasons by not properly evaluating significant changes Meta implemented on Marketplace on 31 July 2023. Failing to rigorously analyze these limitations, which restricted the number of permitted listings, was considered incompatible with the Commission’s duty to conduct a diligent and impartial examination based on the most complete and reliable information possible.

The judgment also underlines that the mere fact that quantitative user thresholds were largely exceeded in the previous three years does not automatically justify a designation, especially when recent factual changes limit how business users can offer goods to consumers on the platform.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between regulating major tech platforms and ensuring procedural fairness, annulling the Marketplace designation and limiting the Commission’s ability to base decisions on insufficient reasoning or outdated factual scenarios.

CJEU Clarifies Liability Regime for Passenger Injuries on Package Cruises

In its judgment of 4 June 2026 (Case C-629/24, MH v Costa Crociere SpA), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the rules governing liability when a passenger sustains personal injury on a cruise ship.

The case concerned preliminary rulings regarding passengers who suffered injuries on board. The core issue was whether compensation claims should be governed by the strict liability regime for package travel under Directive 90/314 or the specific liability limits established by Regulation 392/2009 and the Athens Convention.

The Court held that when a cruise is sold as a package, actions for damages relating to injuries sustained during the carriage by sea are governed by the maritime carrier liability regime. The Court clarified that this applies to the entire period the passenger is on board, without needing to distinguish whether the injury resulted from transport, accommodation, or recreation services.

Importantly, the Court stressed that while organizers are liable to consumers for the proper performance of a package contract, they are entitled to rely on the compensation limits provided by the Athens Convention. Therefore, the specific liability caps for death or personal injury occurring on a ship take precedence over the general package travel rules.

The judgment also underlines that passengers have the choice to bring an action either against the cruise organizer or directly against the performing carrier, but they cannot obtain compensation exceeding the actual loss suffered through multiple claims.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between ensuring adequate protection for travelers and maintaining harmonized international liability limits for the maritime transport industry, clarifying the intersection between package travel regulations and maritime law.

CJEU Clarifies Rules on Default Interest for Voided Consumer Contracts

In its judgment of 11 June 2026 (Case C-903/24, Zmarka), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the rules on awarding statutory default interest when a contract is annulled due to unfair terms.

The case concerned a voided foreign currency loan where the core issue was whether default interest accrues from a general payment demand or only from a demand specifying the exact amount claimed.

The Court held that requiring the specific amount to be stated in an extrajudicial or procedural document to trigger default interest does not violate Directive 93/13 or the principle of effectiveness.

Importantly, the Court stressed that this requirement does not place an excessive burden on consumers, as they can easily verify paid installments through bank records or by requesting a certificate.

The judgment also underlines that this rule applies independently of specific case circumstances, even when individuals are represented by legal counsel

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between consumer protection and fair procedural standards, confirming that specifying claim amounts is a valid prerequisite for obtaining default interest on voided agreements.

CJEU Clarifies Rules on Basic Payment Accounts and Anti-Money Laundering Checks

In its judgment of 11 June 2026 (Case C-81/24, LH v OTP banka d.d.), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits banks face when refusing to open basic payment accounts due to anti-money laundering regulations.

The case concerned a bank’s refusal to open a basic account for an individual solely because the applicant was included on the United States OFAC list, a restrictive measures list maintained by a third country.

The Court held that EU law does not permit credit institutions to automatically reject applications based purely on such third-country lists. The Court clarified that being on an external sanctions list does not inherently prohibit establishing a business relationship under Directive 2015/849.

Importantly, the Court stressed that while inclusion on such a list is a relevant risk factor, banks are required to conduct an individual assessment of the actual money laundering or terrorist financing risks. A refusal is only justified if this personalized assessment shows the risk cannot be effectively managed through proportionate measures.

The judgment also underlines that anti-money laundering rules cannot be used as a pretext to create unjustified barriers for consumers seeking access to the financial system, particularly given the inherently lower risk of accounts with limited features.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between preventing financial crime and ensuring financial inclusion, confirming that automatic account denials based on foreign sanctions lists are incompatible with EU law without a proper risk evaluation.

CJEU Clarifies Exemptions for Importing Protected Species in Consumer Medicines

In its judgment of 11 June 2026 (Case C-601/24, Gotka), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the rules governing the importation of medicinal products containing protected species of wild fauna and flora.

The case concerned criminal proceedings against an individual who introduced tablets containing Japanese seahorse extract into the EU from a third country without an import permit, intended purely for personal therapeutic use.

The Court held that while such a complex preparation is considered a specimen under EU law, it can qualify for the personal or household effects exemption. The Court clarified that classifying a product as a medicinal product does not exclude it from the scope of wildlife protection regulations.

Importantly, the Court stressed that the absence of a commercial purpose is a decisive criterion. Therefore, consumers who lawfully purchase such products abroad for their own medical needs or those of a close relative are exempt from presenting an import permit, provided specific customs conditions are met.

The judgment also underlines that Member States cannot impose criminal sanctions on individuals importing these products if this personal effects derogation applies. If the exemption does not apply, any criminal penalty imposed must strictly comply with the principle of proportionality.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between ensuring the conservation of endangered species and protecting individuals acting without commercial intent, preventing the unjustified criminalization of cross-border personal purchases.

CJEU Clarifies Temporal Application of Rules on Non-Performing Loans

In its judgment of 11 June 2026 (Case C-65/25, IFIS NPL INVESTING), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the temporal scope of EU rules regarding non-performing loans and anti-money laundering supervision.

The case concerned bulk assignments of non-performing loans under older national legislation that required neither written contracts nor prudential supervision, applicable before the deadline for transposing Directive 2021/2167.

The Court held that the EU framework on credit purchasers does not apply retroactively to transfers occurring before the 29 December 2023 transposition deadline.

Importantly, the Court stressed that general anti-money laundering rules apply only to specific entities, which exclude purchasers of non-performing loans. Therefore, while consumers now enjoy stronger protections under the new framework, these strict requirements cannot be imposed on prior assignments.

The judgment also underlines that general EU principles, such as transparency and good faith, are inapplicable, as the older national legislation did not implement EU law.

Overall, the ruling reinforces legal certainty, confirming that national rules lacking strict written form and supervision for loan assignments are permitted if the facts occurred before the new directives became applicable

CJEU Clarifies Limits on National Restrictions for Cross-Border Digital Services

In its judgment of 16 June 2026 (Joined Cases C-188/24 and C-190/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits Member States face when regulating information society services originating from other EU countries.

The cases concerned French legislation requiring pornographic websites to implement age verification, and rules prohibiting navigation apps from rebroadcasting police roadside checks.

The Court held that while criminal laws and public policy measures fall within the EU’s harmonized framework, Member States generally cannot impose broad, abstract criminal obligations on service providers established in other Member States.

Importantly, the Court stressed that national authorities may still take targeted measures against specific providers. Requiring a specific platform to use age verification or prohibiting a navigation app from sharing roadside check data is permitted if proportionate and procedurally valid. This ensures that vulnerable consumers, such as minors, receive adequate protection without imposing unlawful general monitoring obligations.

The judgment also underlines that platforms actively controlling content visibility through algorithms cannot claim the liability exemptions reserved for neutral hosting services.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between the free movement of digital services and the protection of public security, clarifying when national authorities can lawfully restrict cross-border online platforms

CJEU Strikes Down Hungarian Mandatory Price Reductions for Food Retailers

In its judgment of 18 June 2026 (Case C-658/24, Penny Market), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits Member States face when imposing mandatory price reductions and minimum stock obligations on large food retailers.

The case concerned Hungarian emergency legislation requiring food retailers with a turnover exceeding EUR 2.5 million to reduce prices of certain basic products by at least 15% and to maintain mandatory stock levels.

The Court held that such legislation is precluded by the EU’s common agricultural market rules and the Services Directive, as imposing mandatory prices fundamentally undermines the free formation of selling prices and fair competition.

Importantly, the Court stressed that while combating inflation and protecting disadvantaged consumers are legitimate goals, targeting only large retailers fails to achieve them systematically, leaving many vulnerable shoppers without access to these discounted goods.

The judgment also underlines that these requirements likely constitute indirect discrimination, as the turnover thresholds primarily penalized foreign-owned companies while allowing large domestic retail franchises to effectively escape the rules.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the integrity of the EU internal market, confirming that national emergency interventions cannot unjustifiably disrupt harmonized agricultural pricing mechanisms or impose discriminatory burdens on cross-border businesses.

CJEU Clarifies Consumer Protection Scope for Financial Contracts for Differences

In its judgment of 18 June 2026 (Case C-346/25, FIBO Markets), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the scope of conflict-of-law rules regarding financial instruments and consumer contracts under the Rome I Regulation.

The case concerned a dispute over a financial contract for differences (CFD), focusing on whether a framework contract’s rules allowing a broker to modify or delay orders fall under an exception that excludes financial instruments from the general consumer protection regime.

The Court held that while the core elements determining the price difference of a CFD constitute a financial instrument, the terms of a framework contract governing order execution and potential price modifications do not.

Importantly, the Court stressed that expanding this exception to cover framework execution terms would unlawfully deprive consumers of the mandatory legal protections afforded by the law of their habitual residence.

The judgment also underlines that this exception must be interpreted strictly, as CFDs are complex and highly speculative products that expose retail clients to significant risks. Overall, the ruling reinforces investor protection in cross-border financial services, confirming that brokers cannot use broad framework clauses to bypass the protective laws of a client’s home country.