Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: July and September 2026

Jurisprudência

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.

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: June 2026

Jurisprudência

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.

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: May 2026

Jurisprudência

May 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.

Presence of Pest Traces in Food Premises May Suffice to Establish Breach of EU Hygiene Obligations: CJEU Clarifies Scope of Food Business Operators’ Responsibility

In its judgment of 13 May 2026 (Case C-483/24, Aldi SA), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Regulation 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs in the context of repeated findings of rodent droppings, pest traces, and contaminated products in food shops and warehouses.

The Court held that, under EU food hygiene law, the finding by competent authorities of traces and droppings of pests in food business premises may, in itself, be sufficient to establish an infringement of certain hygiene obligations, without the need to additionally prove that the operator failed to take all possible preventive measures.

The Court emphasized that Regulation 852/2004 pursues a high level of consumer protection and food safety, and that food business operators bear the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with hygiene requirements throughout the food chain.

In particular, the Court clarified that the repeated presence of pests or contamination in shops and storage facilities demonstrates a breach of obligations relating to the protection of food against contamination and the implementation of adequate pest-control procedures. The Court also confirmed that HACCP-based procedures do not relieve operators from compliance with the general hygiene obligations laid down in Annex II of the Regulation.

However, regarding the structural requirements of food premises, the Court distinguished that the mere presence of pests is not automatically sufficient to establish a breach. In such cases, it must also be shown that the characteristics of the premises themselves prevent the implementation of proper hygiene practices.

Overall, the judgment reinforces that EU food hygiene rules impose strict responsibilities on food business operators, reflecting the fundamental objective of ensuring food safety and protecting public health.

Traders Must Inform Consumers About Possible Customs Formalities and Duties in International Transport Contracts: CJEU Clarifies Scope of Pre-Contractual Information Duties

In its judgment of 13 May 2026 (Case C-488/24, D.V. v Kigas MB), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2011/83 on consumer rights in the context of an international carriage contract involving customs duties imposed on goods transported from Norway to Lithuania.

The Court held that, in contracts for the international carriage of goods, traders must inform consumers that customs formalities may need to be completed and that customs duties may be payable when goods are imported into the European Union.

The Court emphasized that such information forms part of the main characteristics of the service and is essential for consumers before deciding whether to conclude the contract, since customs procedures and duties may significantly affect both the performance and the overall cost of the transport service.

However, the Court clarified that EU law does not require traders to provide detailed information on the precise customs documents to be submitted or on the exact rates and amounts of customs duties applicable. According to the Court, imposing such an obligation would be disproportionate, particularly because those duties may depend on factors unknown at the time the contract is concluded.

The judgment also confirms that customs duties constitute additional charges within the meaning of Directive 2011/83, meaning that traders must at least inform consumers that such charges may arise, even where their exact amount cannot reasonably be calculated in advance.

CJEU Limits National Notification Duties for Imported Food Supplements

In its judgment of 21 May 2026 (Case C-626/24, PRAGON s. r. o. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits Member States face when imposing prior notification obligations on operators importing food supplements from other EU countries.

The case concerned Czech legislation requiring operators to notify authorities at least 24 hours in advance of the arrival of food supplements imported from another Member State, in order to facilitate official food safety controls.

The Court held that Article 9(7) of Regulation 2017/625 fully harmonises the conditions under which Member States may require such notifications. Under that provision, prior notification obligations are permitted only where they are strictly necessary for the organisation of official controls.

Importantly, the Court stressed that such measures must remain exceptional and proportionate. A general and systematic obligation applying to all imported food supplements was considered incompatible with EU law, particularly given the existence of less restrictive mechanisms for ensuring food safety, including risk-based controls, information-sharing systems between Member States, and existing notification mechanisms under EU food supplement legislation.

The judgment also underlines that the mere fact that products originate from another Member State does not automatically justify stricter controls, since those goods are already subject to harmonised EU food safety rules.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between consumer and public health protection and the free movement of goods within the EU internal market, while limiting Member States’ ability to impose broad administrative burdens on intra-EU trade.

The CJEU Rejects Greek Restrictions on Online Sales of Non-Prescription Medicines

In its judgment of 21 May 2026 (Case C-604/24, Farmakeio YZ & Sia OE v Ypourgos Anaptyxis kai Ependyseon and Ypourgos Ygeias), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the limits Member States face when regulating the online sale of non-prescription medicinal products.

The case concerned Greek legislation allowing certified online pharmacies to sell at a distance only a limited subcategory of non-prescription medicines, namely “over-the-counter” products, while excluding other non-prescription medicines from online sale.

The Court held that Article 85c(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/83 precludes such legislation. According to the Court, the directive requires Member States to ensure that all non-prescription medicinal products may in principle be sold online, while permitting prohibitions only for prescription medicines.

The Greek Government justified the restriction on grounds such as overmedication, counterfeit medicines, and the lack of direct pharmacist supervision in online sales. While the Court accepted that these objectives relate to public health protection and consumer safety, it stressed that Member States must adopt proportionate measures and cannot impose restrictions that effectively eliminate online sales of certain non-prescription medicines.

Overall, the ruling reinforces the balance between public health protection and the free movement of goods and services within the EU, while limiting Member States’ ability to impose broad restrictions on cross-border online pharmaceutical sales.

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: April 2026

Jurisprudência

April 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. Below is an overview of rulings delivered in this month, highlighting their practical implications for businesses, consumers, and regulators across the EU.

Consumer Acknowledgment Can Interrupt Limitation Periods: CJEU Clarifies Effects in Unfair Contract Cases

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-901/24, Falucka), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC in the context of restitution claims following the invalidity of consumer contracts containing unfair terms. The case concerned proceedings between mBank and several consumers after a mortgage loan agreement was declared void due to unfair terms, raising the question whether a consumer’s acknowledgment of debt, made during litigation, can interrupt the limitation period for the bank’s restitution claim.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national rules under which such an acknowledgment interrupts the limitation period. It reasoned that this does not undermine the effectiveness of consumer protection, since the invalidity of unfair terms must restore the parties to their original position, which may include mutual restitution. The Court emphasized that the consumer’s right to restitution remains intact, and that allowing interruption of limitation periods does not make it excessively difficult to exercise rights under EU law.

Importantly, the Court clarified that a consumer’s informed acknowledgment, made after being advised of the legal consequences of contract invalidation, may validly produce legal effects, including restarting limitation periods. It rejected the argument that such acknowledgments inherently disadvantage consumers, noting that consumers must be properly informed, but not exhaustively instructed on all procedural consequences, such as limitation rules.

The Court also found that this approach is consistent with the principles of legal certainty and the right of access to a court, as it allows sellers or suppliers to rely on consumer statements when deciding whether to initiate legal action. Such rules ensure predictability and fairness in legal relations, without compromising the protective purpose of Directive 93/13.

Overall, the judgment confirms that consumer protection under EU law does not exclude procedural consequences flowing from a consumer’s own informed statements, and that national limitation rules, when applied proportionately, remain compatible with the Directive’s objectives.

Online Gambling Restrictions and Restitution of Losses: CJEU Confirms Compatibility with EU Law

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-440/23, FB), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 56 TFEU in the context of national restrictions on online gambling and claims for restitution of losses incurred under unlawful gambling contracts. The case concerned proceedings between a consumer and Malta-based online gambling operators, raising questions about whether German legislation prohibiting certain online games of chance, such as slot machines and secondary lotteries, was compatible with the freedom to provide services.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national legislation imposing a general prohibition on specific forms of online gambling, even where other types of gambling are permitted, including land-based games and certain licensed online activities like sports betting. It reasoned that Member States retain broad discretion in regulating gambling to protect consumers and prevent fraud and addiction, and that differences in regulatory treatment between types of games do not, in themselves, undermine the consistency or proportionality of such legislation.

The Court emphasized that the existence of demand for prohibited online gambling services, or the fact that similar services are lawfully offered in other Member States, does not invalidate national restrictions. It also clarified that a later legislative shift towards a licensing system does not retroactively affect the legality or consequences of a prior prohibition, including during transitional regulatory periods.

Importantly, the Court confirmed that contracts concluded in breach of such national prohibitions may be considered void under applicable national law, and that consumers may seek restitution of losses incurred. It rejected the argument that such claims constitute an abuse of rights, noting that restitution arises from national contract law and reflects the consequences of illegality, rather than reliance on EU law itself.

Overall, the judgment reaffirms the wide regulatory autonomy of Member States in the gambling sector and confirms that national rules on contract nullity and restitution, when applied consistently with EU law, do not infringe the freedom to provide services.

Bank Restitution Actions May Interrupt Limitation Periods Despite Parallel Invalidity Proceedings: CJEU Clarifies Consumer Protection Limits

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-752/24, Jangielak), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, together with the principles of effectiveness, proportionality, legal certainty and the right of access to a court, in the context of restitution claims following the invalidity of consumer credit agreements containing unfair terms. The case concerned proceedings between mBank and consumers after a mortgage loan agreement indexed to the Swiss franc was challenged for containing unfair terms, raising the question whether a bank’s action for restitution, brought before the final outcome of separate invalidity proceedings initiated by consumers, can interrupt the limitation period.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude national rules under which the bringing of such a restitution action interrupts the limitation period, even where parallel proceedings on the invalidity of the contract are still ongoing. It reasoned that this mechanism is compatible with the objective of Directive 93/13, since the invalidity of unfair terms requires restoring the parties to their original position, which may include mutual restitution obligations.

The Court emphasized that consumer protection does not exclude the bank’s right to seek restitution, as denying such a possibility could infringe the principle of proportionality and lead to unjust enrichment of the consumer. It also stressed that allowing interruption of limitation periods ensures effective judicial protection and access to a court for the seller or supplier, maintaining a fair balance between the parties.

Importantly, the Court clarified that the mere obligation for consumers to defend themselves in restitution proceedings does not make the exercise of their rights excessively difficult, provided that national courts ensure procedural safeguards. In particular, courts must verify that costs are not disproportionately high and may, where appropriate, stay proceedings to avoid undermining consumer protection.

The Court further found that such rules are consistent with the principle of legal certainty, as they ensure predictability in legal relations by allowing limitation periods to be interrupted through judicial actions in a uniform manner.

Overall, the judgment confirms that Directive 93/13 does not prevent national procedural rules that allow banks to interrupt limitation periods through restitution actions, even during ongoing invalidity proceedings, provided that consumer rights are not rendered excessively difficult or impossible to exercise.

Equity May Justify Allowing Time-Barred Bank Claims: CJEU Sets Limits Under Consumer Law

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (Case C-753/24, Rzepacz), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC does not preclude national rules allowing courts, in exceptional circumstances, to grant a bank’s restitution claim even after the limitation period has expired, where equity so requires.

The Court emphasized that the invalidity of unfair terms entails restoring the parties to their original position, including mutual restitution, and that fully excluding the bank’s claim could breach the principle of proportionalityand lead to unjust enrichment.

However, such exceptions must remain strictly limited, based on objective criteria, and applied so that they do not make it excessively difficult for consumers to exercise their rights, particularly by avoiding disproportionate costs.

Overall, the ruling confirms that equity-based exceptions to limitation periods are permissible, provided they do not undermine effective consumer protection under EU law.

Non-Publication of ISO Standards Does Not Preclude Their Enforceability Where Access Is Ensured: CJEU Clarifies Rule of Law Requirements

In its judgment of 21 April 2026 (Case C-155/24, Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/40/EU in light of the principle of the rule of law, legal certainty, and free access to EU law, in the context of measuring tobacco emissions. The case concerned whether ISO standards referenced in EU legislation, but not published in the Official Journal, can be enforced against individuals.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude the enforceability of such ISO standards where individuals have had actual access to their official and authentic content, even if they were not formally published. In such cases, individuals cannot rely on alternative measurement methods to challenge compliance with emission limits.

The Court emphasized that free and effective access to legal rules is a core requirement of the rule of law under Article 2 TEU. Therefore, standards incorporated into EU law must be accessible in a general, non-discriminatory, and free-of-charge manner, ensuring that individuals can verify compliance and enforce their rights.

Importantly, the Court clarified that once such access is guaranteed, the absence of formal publication in the Official Journal does not undermine the binding nature of those standards. At the same time, it stressed that the EU must ensure access to these standards, even where they are protected by intellectual property rights, due to an overriding public interest.

Overall, the judgment confirms that non-publication of technical standards does not prevent their application, provided that effective access is ensured, thereby safeguarding both legal certainty and a high level of public health protection under EU law.

Charging Interest on Credit Costs Is Precluded Under EU Law: CJEU Clarifies Scope of “Total Amount of Credit”

In its judgment of 23 April 2026 (Case C-744/24, P.W. v Bank Polska Kasa Opieki S.A.), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 3(g) and (j) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/48/EC in the context of consumer credit agreements involving financed insurance premiums. The case concerned whether a lender may apply interest not only to the amount actually disbursed to the consumer, but also to costs associated with the credit, such as insurance premiums.

The Court held that EU law precludes such a practice. Interest, defined as the “borrowing rate”, may be applied only to the amount of credit actually made available to the consumer, and not to sums forming part of the total cost of the credit, even where those costs are financed as part of the agreement.

The Court emphasized the strict distinction established by Directive 2008/48 between the “total amount of credit” and the “total cost of the credit to the consumer”. Costs such as insurance premiums, particularly where they are required to obtain the credit on advertised terms, fall within the latter category and cannot be treated as part of the credit drawn down.

Importantly, the Court clarified that this prohibition applies regardless of whether the relevant sums are physically transferred to the consumer or paid directly to third parties. The classification of such amounts depends on their economic function within the credit agreement, not on the method of disbursement.

Overall, the judgment confirms that lenders cannot circumvent EU consumer protection rules by artificially inflating the base on which interest is calculated. By excluding credit costs from the interest-bearing amount, the ruling reinforces transparency, ensures comparability of credit offers, and safeguards a high level of consumer protection under EU law.

Consumers May Enforce Rights Against Transferee Banks: CJEU Confirms Limits Under Directive 93/13

In its judgment of 23 April 2026 (Case C-761/24, HM and JD v AXA Bank Belgium SA and Others), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the application of Directive 93/13/EEC to loan agreements transferred between credit institutions.

The Court held that EU law does not preclude requiring consumers to assert their rights only against the transferee of a contract, as long as this does not make those rights impossible or excessively difficult to exercise.

It stressed that the concept of “seller or supplier” includes transferee banks, and that all legal consequences of unfair terms must remain enforceable against them under the same conditions as against the original lender.

Overall, the judgment confirms that contract transfers cannot undermine consumer protection, and rights must remain fully effective after the transfer.

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: March 2026

Jurisprudência

March 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.

Consumer Assistance Does Not Preclude Distance Contract Status, but Withdrawal May Be Abusive

In its judgment of 5 March 2026 (Case C-564/24), the Court of Justice interpreted key provisions of Directive 2011/83/EU concerning the notion of a distance contract and the right of withdrawal. The case concerned a dispute between Eisenberger Gerüstbau GmbH and a consumer (JK), who, after concluding a contract for scaffolding works through an architect acting on her behalf, sought to withdraw from that contract and recover payments already made. The referring German court asked whether the involvement of a trader assisting the consumer affected the classification of the contract and the applicability of consumer protection rules. The Court held that the fact that a consumer is assisted by another trader — even where that trader initiates contact with the service provider and influences key contractual terms — is not relevant for determining whether the contract qualifies as a “distance contract” within the meaning of Article 2(7). Nor does such assistance affect the consumer’s status, which must be assessed objectively by reference to the purpose of the contract. The Court further clarified that an addendum concluded exclusively through means of distance communication may itself constitute a distance contract, even if the main contract does not, provided the conditions laid down in the directive are met. Finally, the Court ruled that, although consumers benefit from a broad right of withdrawal, its exercise may, in exceptional circumstances, be considered abusive. This may be the case where the consumer withdraws at the end of an extended withdrawal period after the services have already been fully performed, with the intention of avoiding payment. However, such abuse must be established by the national court on the basis of all the circumstances, including both objective and subjective elements. This decision is discussed here.

Reduced VAT for Accommodation May Exclude Ancillary Services Without Breaching EU Law

In its judgment of 5 March 2026 (Joined Cases C-409/24 to C-411/24), the Court of Justice interpreted Article 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC concerning reduced VAT rates and their application to accommodation services supplied to consumers. The cases concerned disputes between German hotel operators and tax authorities, where services such as breakfast, parking, Wi-Fi, and wellness access were provided together with short-term accommodation and paid for by consumers under a single price. The referring court asked whether EU law precludes national rules requiring those services to be separated and taxed at the standard rate, even where they are ancillary to the principal accommodation supply. The Court held that EU law does not preclude such national legislation. It confirmed that, although ancillary services may form part of a single economic supply from the perspective of consumers, Member States may apply reduced VAT rates selectively to specific aspects of the categories listed in Annex III. Accordingly, accommodation services supplied to consumers may be distinguished from other services provided alongside them, provided that this distinction is based on objective criteria. The Court also clarified that the classification of a transaction as a single supply is not decisive where such discretion is exercised. Finally, the Court emphasized that the principle of fiscal neutrality must be respected. This requires that similar services from the perspective of consumers — such as breakfast or parking offered independently — are not treated differently for VAT purposes. Therefore, excluding ancillary services from the reduced rate is permissible, provided that they are subject to the same standard rate whether supplied independently or together with accommodation. The final assessment remains for the national court.

Virtual Game Currency Is Not VAT-Exempt and Must Be Fully Taxed, with No Special Treatment for Consumers

In its judgment of 5 March 2026 (Case C-472/24), the Court of Justice interpreted provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC concerning VAT exemptions for currency transactions and the concept of vouchers. The case concerned a dispute between MB “Žaidimų valiuta” and the Lithuanian tax authority regarding the VAT treatment of transactions involving the purchase and resale of virtual currency (“Gold”) used in the online game Runescape, including implications for consumers engaging in such exchanges. The referring body asked whether those transactions could be exempt as currency operations or treated as multi-purpose vouchers, and how the taxable amount should be calculated. The Court held that virtual game currency such as “Gold” does not fall within the VAT exemption for currency transactions under Article 135(1)(e), since it is not accepted as an alternative means of payment outside the game and does not function as a genuine currency for consumers in the wider economy. It further clarified that such virtual units cannot be classified as vouchers within the meaning of Article 30a, because they do not entitle consumers to receive distinct goods or services but instead constitute the very digital service consumed within the game. Consequently, the transactions must be treated as taxable supplies of electronic services. Finally, the Court ruled that VAT must be calculated on the full amount received for the sale of the virtual currency, rather than only on the trader’s margin, meaning that no preferential calculation method applies even where consumers are involved in the transaction chain.

Limitation Periods and Consumer Awareness: CJEU Strengthens Protection Against Unfair Terms in Foreign Currency Loans

In its judgment of 19 March 2026 (Case C-679/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Articles 1 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC concerning the effectiveness of consumer protection in relation to limitation periods for claims based on unfair terms. The case arose from a dispute in Hungary between a consumer and financial institutions regarding a foreign-currency loan agreement containing a clause placing exchange rate risk entirely on the consumer. The referring court asked whether EU law precludes national rules under which a consumer’s claim for the legal consequences of the invalidity of such an agreement is subject to a five-year limitation period running from the date of conclusion of the contract, and whether judicial decisions could affect the starting point or suspension of that period. The Court held that EU law precludes a judicial interpretation of national law under which such a limitation period begins to run from the date the contract was concluded, where the consumer was not aware and could not reasonably have been aware of the unfairness of the term at that time. It emphasized that such a rule risks making the exercise of consumer rights excessively difficult, contrary to the principle of effectiveness. The Court further clarified that the date of judgments of the Court of Justice or national supreme courts cannot be used to determine the starting point or resumption of the limitation period, since consumers cannot be expected to monitor or interpret case-law developments in order to assert their rights. Only a final judicial decision concerning the specific consumer, duly notified, may establish awareness sufficient to trigger the limitation period. The final assessment of whether the consumer could reasonably have been aware of the unfairness remains for the national court.

“Final Price”… but with Conditions: CJEU Clarifies When Extra Fees Stay Outside the Listed Price

In its judgment of 26 March 2026 (Case C-62/25), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 2(a) of Directive 98/6/EC concerning the concept of ‘selling price’ in the context of online sales. The case arose from a dispute in Germany between a consumer protection association and an online retailer regarding whether flat-rate processing fees, charged only when the total order value falls below a certain threshold, must be included in the advertised price of a product. The Court held that such fees do not have to be included in the ‘selling price’. It clarified that the selling price must comprise all unavoidable and foreseeable components of the price that constitute the consideration for acquiring the product. However, flat-rate processing costs of this kind are not necessarily payable, since consumers may avoid them by increasing the total value of their order beyond the minimum threshold. As a result, they do not form part of the final price of a unit of the product within the meaning of the directive. The Court further emphasized that including such variable and conditional costs in the selling price could undermine price transparency and hinder consumers’ ability to compare offers effectively. By contrast, indicating those costs separately—provided they are clearly disclosed—better serves the objectives of Directive 98/6, namely ensuring precise, transparent, and unambiguous price information. The Court also noted that an average consumer is capable of combining the product price with any additional fees to determine the total amount payable. Accordingly, the Court concluded that EU law does not require flat-rate processing fees, which depend on the total order value and apply only below a minimum threshold, to be included in the selling price, as long as those fees are clearly indicated and do not become unavoidable in practice.

Heritage or Hype? CJEU Clarifies When Luxury Branding Becomes Misleading

In its judgment of 26 March 2026 (Case C-412/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC concerning deceptive trade marks. The case arose from a dispute between luxury leather goods companies regarding the validity of trade marks incorporating the number “1717”, which was perceived by consumers as indicating the historical origin of the brand and suggesting long-standing know-how. The referring court asked whether a trade mark may be considered deceptive where it conveys false information about the age and heritage of the undertaking, leading consumers to infer that the goods possess qualities such as prestige or superior craftsmanship. In particular, the question was whether such misleading indications, although relating formally to the undertaking rather than directly to the product, could nonetheless fall within the prohibition of deceptive marks. The Court held that a trade mark may be refused or declared invalid where it creates actual deception or a sufficiently serious risk of deception regarding the characteristics of the goods. It clarified that, while misleading information about the undertaking itself is not sufficient as such, it may fall within Article 3(1)(g) where it leads consumers to infer incorrect characteristics of the goods, such as quality or prestige. In the luxury sector, those intangible elements—linked to heritage, craftsmanship, and brand image—may constitute essential product characteristics. Accordingly, the Court found that the inclusion in a trade mark of a date perceived as indicating the historical establishment of a business may be deceptive where it falsely suggests long-standing know-how that enhances the perceived quality and prestige of the goods. This is particularly relevant where consumers attach significant importance to heritage in their purchasing decisions. The final assessment remains for the national court, which must determine how the mark is perceived by the relevant public and whether it conveys such misleading associations.

Defective Products Liability in the EU: CJEU Confirms Fault Claims, Clarifies Limitation Periods, and Upholds 10-Year Longstop

In its judgment of 26 March 2026 (Case C-338/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products, in a case concerning a claim for damages following vaccination and the impact of a progressive illness on limitation periods. The referring court asked, in particular, whether EU law allows parallel reliance on fault-based liability, how to determine the starting point of the three-year limitation period, and whether the directive’s 10-year longstop is compatible with the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter. The Court held, first, that Article 13 of the directive does not preclude injured persons from bringing claims under national fault-based liability systems, provided that those claims are based on a different legal basis than the strict liability regime established by the directive. It confirmed that conduct such as maintaining a product on the market despite knowledge of its risks, or failing to comply with duties of vigilance, may constitute independent fault capable of giving rise to liability. As regards limitation periods, the Court clarified that the three-year period under Article 10(1) begins when the claimant becomes aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the damage, the defect, and the identity of the producer. It rejected the interpretation that this period only starts upon stabilization of the damage, holding instead that it is sufficient that the damage has become apparent and can be linked to the product, irrespective of its subsequent evolution. Finally, the Court upheld the validity of the 10-year longstop period laid down in Article 11, finding that it does not infringe the right of access to a court. It emphasized that the provision pursues legitimate objectives of legal certainty and balanced allocation of risk, and that injured persons retain a real opportunity to bring proceedings within the prescribed time limits, including in cases involving progressive harm.

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: January and February 2026

Jurisprudência

January and February 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.

Air Carriers Must Reimburse Intermediary Commissions as Part of the Ticket Price After Flight Cancellations

On 15 January 2026, the CJEU clarified the scope of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) thereof, concerning the reimbursement of airline ticket prices following flight cancellations where tickets are purchased through intermediaries. The case (C-45/24), referred by the Austrian Supreme Court, arose from proceedings brought by the Austrian consumer association VKI against KLM, seeking reimbursement of an agency commission charged by an online booking platform when passengers purchased tickets that were later cancelled. The Court held that the “price of the ticket” to be reimbursed includes the intermediary’s commission paid by the passenger, even where the air carrier was unaware of the exact amount of that commission. Emphasising that such commissions constitute an unavoidable component of the ticket price in a single transaction authorised by the carrier, the Court rejected an interpretation that would make reimbursement conditional on the carrier’s precise knowledge of the commission. Such an approach, it reasoned, would undermine the high level of passenger protection pursued by Regulation No 261/2004, risk delaying reimbursement, and potentially deter consumers from using intermediaries. The judgment thus reinforces the effectiveness and simplicity of passenger reimbursement rights, while allocating the commercial risk associated with intermediary practices to air carriers rather than consumers.

Rome II Applies to Directors’ Tort Liability for Unlicensed Online Gambling, with Damage Occurring at the Player’s Residence

On 15 January 2026, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Articles 1(2)(d) and 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007) in a case concerning the tort liability of company directors for losses arising from unlicensed online gambling activities. The case (C-77/24, Wunner (i)), referred by the Austrian Supreme Court, arose from an action brought by an Austrian consumer seeking recovery of gambling losses from the directors of a Maltese online gambling company that operated in Austria without the licence required under national law. The Court held, first, that such an action does not fall within the exclusion for “non-contractual obligations arising out of the law of companies” under Article 1(2)(d) Rome II, since the alleged liability is based on the infringement of a general statutory prohibition, external to the internal organisation or management of the company. Second, the Court ruled that, for the purposes of Article 4(1) Rome II, the place where the damage occurred is the Member State in which the player is habitually resident, as this is where the protected interest is harmed and where participation in the unlawful online gambling activity takes place. By anchoring both the applicable law and the localisation of damage to the player’s residence, the judgment enhances legal certainty and predictability, while strengthening consumer protection against cross-border illegal gambling practices and facilitating effective private enforcement against company directors.

Banks May Raise a Plea of Set-off Following the Invalidation of a Consumer Credit Agreement Containing Unfair Terms

On 22 January 2026, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in RM and EM v Santander Bank Polska S.A. (Case C-902/24), clarifying the interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in light of the principle of effectiveness, in the context of restitution following the invalidation of a consumer credit agreement due to unfair terms. The reference for a preliminary ruling was made by a Polish court in proceedings brought by two consumers seeking repayment of amounts paid under a mortgage loan agreement declared void as a result of unfair terms. In response to the consumers’ restitution claim, the bank raised, in the alternative, a plea of set-off corresponding to the loan principal. The Court recalled that, where an unfair term renders a contract incapable of continuing in existence, EU law does not itself determine the legal consequences of that invalidity, which remain governed by national law, subject to compliance with EU consumer protection requirements. It held that Directive 93/13/EEC does not preclude national legislation allowing a seller or supplier to raise, in the alternative, a plea of set-off against the consumer’s restitution claim, provided that such a claim is not treated as due before the contract has been definitively invalidated and does not undermine the effectiveness of the protection conferred on consumers. The Court further emphasised that national rules on procedural costs must not have a dissuasive effect on consumers seeking to exercise their rights under the directive. The judgment thus confirms that national restitution and set-off mechanisms may be compatible with EU consumer law, while reaffirming that their application must not weaken the deterrent effect of the unfair terms regime or discourage consumers from seeking judicial protection. The decision has been commented on, inter alia, Courthouse News and NOVA Consumer Lab, highlighting both its practical implications for mortgage litigation and the open questions it leaves from a consumer law perspective.

Pre-Action Disclosure in Competition Damages Claims Must Respect the Plausibility Threshold, Even in Consumer Collective Actions

On 29 January 2026, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU in a case concerning access to evidence prior to the bringing of a competition damages action on behalf of consumers. The case (C-286/24), referred for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court, Portugal), arose from a dispute between Meliá Hotels International and Associação Ius Omnibus regarding a request for disclosure of documents intended to support a potential collective action for damages following a Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU. The consumer association sought access to evidence in order to assess the harm allegedly suffered by Portuguese consumers as a result of territorial restrictions in hotel booking conditions. The Court held that Article 5(1) applies to actions brought specifically for the purpose of obtaining disclosure before a damages claim is formally introduced, provided that national law allows such procedural mechanisms. However, the CJEU clarified that a Commission decision establishing a vertical restriction by object does not, in itself, suffice to demonstrate the plausibility of harm for the purposes of ordering disclosure. Unlike cartels, vertical infringements do not benefit from the presumption of harm under Article 17(2) of the Directive, and claimants — including consumer representative bodies — must present reasonably available evidence capable of supporting the plausibility of damage and a causal link. The Court further emphasised that the plausibility requirement does not amount to a full evidentiary standard, but it must prevent speculative or purely exploratory requests. The judgment thus strengthens procedural tools available for consumer collective redress in competition matters, while safeguarding proportionality and legal certainty in the disclosure of evidence.

No General Presumption of Confidentiality for Member States’ Votes in Comitology Procedures

On 5 February 2026, the CJEU clarified the scope of public access to documents in the context of comitology procedures, in a case concerning the disclosure of Member States’ individual votes cast within a committee assisting the Commission in the adoption of an implementing regulation of general application. The case (C-540/23 P), referred to the Court of Justice on appeal by the European Commission against Covington & Burling LLP and Mr Bart Van Vooren, arose from a request for access to documents revealing how Member States voted within the PAFF Committee during the preparation of a draft regulation amending Annex III to Regulation No 1925/2006 on substances added to food. The Commission argued that disclosure of those individual votes would seriously undermine its decision-making process and that the comitology framework reflected structural confidentiality protecting national positions. The Court held that, although such votes constitute opinions expressed as part of internal deliberations, the regulatory framework governing comitology does not establish a general presumption of non-disclosure. It confirmed that institutions must carry out a specific and concrete assessment of the actual risk associated with disclosure and cannot rely on abstract reasoning concerning the need to preserve cooperation between Member States. The CJEU further emphasised that increased openness enhances democratic legitimacy and accountability, particularly where implementing measures may affect consumers and EU citizens as a whole. The judgment thus reaffirms that comitology procedures are subject to the EU’s constitutional commitment to transparency and that exceptions to access to documents must be interpreted strictly.

Member States May Prohibit GMO (genetically modified organism) Cultivation Without Specific Justification Under Transitional Mechanism

On 5 February 2026, the CJEU ruled on the validity of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18, as amended by Directive 2015/412, in joined preliminary ruling proceedings concerning national prohibitions on the cultivation of MON 810 genetically modified maize. The cases (C-364/24 and C-393/24), referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) and the Tribunale di Udine (District Court, Udine, Italy), arose from disputes brought by Mr Giorgio Fidenato following orders to destroy GMO maize crops and the imposition of administrative fines for breaching the Italian prohibition implemented pursuant to Commission Implementing Decision 2016/321. The referring courts questioned whether allowing Member States, during the transitional period, to demand an adjustment of the geographical scope of an existing GMO authorisation without providing specific justification was compatible with the free movement of goods, proportionality, non-discrimination, freedom to conduct a business, and WTO obligations. The Court held that the mechanism established in Article 26c(1) and (3) is valid, emphasising that cultivation prohibitions adopted under that procedure require the tacit consent of the authorisation holder and do not affect the free circulation of authorised GMO products as goods. It further clarified that such measures do not undermine consumers’ freedom of choice, since authorised GMO products may continue to be marketed and consumed within the internal market. The CJEU confirmed that the EU legislature acted within its broad discretion under Article 114 TFEU, balancing internal market objectives with subsidiarity and national flexibility regarding land use. The Court also ruled that decisions adopted under Article 26c(1) and (3) need not rely on the specific grounds listed in Article 26b(3), and that Implementing Decision 2016/321 does not preclude national penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Compliance of a Mortgage Loan Interest Clause Based on a Regulated Benchmark Does Not in Itself Render the Term Unfair

On 12 February 2026, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Articles 1(2), 4(2) and 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in conjunction with Regulation 2016/1011, in a case concerning the fairness and transparency of a variable interest rate clause in a mortgage loan agreement concluded with a consumer. The case (C-471/24), referred by a Polish court, arose from proceedings between a consumer and a bank regarding a loan indexed to the WIBOR 6M benchmark, where the consumer argued that the clause was unfair due to the methodology of that index and the bank’s role as a contributing entity. The Court held, first, that Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13 does not exclude such a term from review where national law merely lays down a general framework for determining interest rates while leaving the professional free to choose the benchmark and margin. Secondly, the CJEU ruled that the transparency requirement under Article 4(2) does not oblige the creditor to provide detailed information on the methodology of the benchmark, provided that it has complied with the information duties laid down in Directive 2014/17 and has not given the consumer a distorted picture of the index. Thirdly, the Court found that the fact that the benchmark methodology may rely on input data not strictly corresponding to actual transactions, and that the creditor is one of the contributing banks, does not in itself create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer, where the index complied with Regulation 2016/1011 at the time of contract conclusion. The judgment thus confirms that the mere use of a regulated benchmark in a mortgage loan agreement does not automatically render the interest clause unfair, while preserving the consumer’s right to judicial review of the term as a whole under Directive 93/13.

Review of the case law of the European Court of Justice: December 2025

Jurisprudência

December 2025 brought a series of noteworthy judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), shaping key aspects of consumer law. These decisions not only clarify the interpretation of EU directives and regulations but also reinforce fundamental principles such as consumer protection, legal certainty, and market fairness. Below is an overview of the most relevant rulings delivered in the last month (end of November and December to date), highlighting their practical implications for businesses, consumers, and regulators across the EU.

Consumers Cannot Be Burdened with Disproportionate Court Costs After Contracts Are Annulled for Unfair Terms

On 27 November 2025, the CJEU clarified the scope of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in light of the principle of effectiveness, in a case concerning the allocation of court costs following the annulment of a consumer credit agreement containing unfair terms. The case (C-746/24), referred by the Regional Court of Warsaw, arose from an action brought by Bank Millennium SA seeking restitution of the loan capital after a Swiss-franc-denominated loan agreement had been declared invalid at the consumer’s request. The Court held that EU law precludes national legislation under which a consumer, acting as defendant, may be ordered to bear court costs significantly higher than those applicable had the consumer been unsuccessful in an action brought on their own initiative to challenge the unfair terms. Such cost asymmetry is liable to deter consumers from exercising or defending their EU-law rights, undermining both effective judicial protection and the deterrent effect of Directive 93/13. While reaffirming Member States’ procedural autonomy, the judgment requires national courts to interpret domestic cost rules in conformity with EU law so as to avoid disproportionate financial burdens on consumers, thereby reinforcing consumer protection, legal certainty and the effectiveness of judicial review in unfair-terms litigation.

Order for Payment Procedures May Limit the Effects of Unfair Terms Review, Provided Consumers Retain Full Judicial Protection

On 27 November 2025, the CJEU ruled on the compatibility of Spanish order for payment procedures with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, interpreted in light of the principle of effectiveness, in a case concerning the ex officio review of unfair contractual terms and the procedural rights of consumers. The case (C-509/24), referred by the Court of First Instance and Preliminary Investigations No 3 of Arucas (Spain), arose from an application by Investcapital Ltd for an order for payment based on a bank account contract concluded with a consumer. The Court held that EU law does not preclude national legislation under which the court, in expedited order for payment proceedings, may merely propose a reduction of the claimed amount by excluding sums derived from terms considered unfair, without formally declaring those terms void, nor prevent the creditor from pursuing the excluded amounts in subsequent proceedings. Such a system is compatible with Directive 93/13 provided that the consumer can obtain, in other proceedings, a declaration of invalidity of the unfair term and that the order for payment does not produce res judicata effects. The Court further ruled that EU law does not require consumer participation at this preliminary review stage, as long as the principle of audi alteram partem is fully respected in later inter partes proceedings. The judgment thus confirms Member States’ procedural autonomy in designing summary recovery mechanisms, while reaffirming that effective consumer protection must ultimately be ensured through access to full judicial review of unfair terms.

Territorial Jurisdiction for Collective Damages Actions Arising from Anticompetitive Conduct on Online Platforms

On 2 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) in the context of representative actions for damages arising from alleged anticompetitive conduct on digital platforms. The case (C-34/24), referred by the District Court of Amsterdam, concerned collective actions brought by two Dutch foundations against Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Inc., seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by users of the App Store in the Netherlands due to the imposition of excessive commissions in breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The Court held that, where an online platform is specifically directed at the market of a Member State, the place where the damage occurred corresponds to the entire territory of that State, even if individual purchases were made online and the users are unidentified but identifiable. Consequently, any court in that Member State having substantive jurisdiction may exercise both international and territorial jurisdiction over a representative action covering all affected users, regardless of their precise location within the State. This approach ensures proximity, predictability and sound administration of justice, avoids fragmentation of jurisdiction and facilitates effective enforcement of competition law in the digital economy, while confirming that collective redress mechanisms do not alter the application of Article 7(2) but may justify a centralised jurisdictional solution.

Subsequent Targeting of a Consumer’s Member State Does Not Alter the Law Applicable to an Existing Contract

On 4 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I), read in conjunction with Article 3, in a case concerning the temporal scope of consumer protection rules in cross-border banking relationships. The case (C-279/24), referred by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), arose from a dispute between AY, a consumer residing in Italy, and Liechtensteinische Landesbank (Österreich) AG, regarding losses allegedly suffered in connection with financial products purchased under an ongoing contractual relationship governed by Austrian law. The Court held that Article 6(1) does not apply where the professional did not pursue or direct its activities to the consumer’s Member State at the time the contract was concluded, even if such targeting occurs subsequently during the contractual relationship. Allowing the applicable law to change retroactively would undermine the predictability of conflict-of-law rules, the principle of legal certainty, and the freedom of choice enshrined in Article 3, which constitutes a cornerstone of Rome I. The CJEU further confirmed that later financial transactions carried out under an existing framework agreement do not, in themselves, constitute a new contractual relationship capable of triggering Article 6. The judgment thus reinforces that consumer protection under Rome I is determined at the moment of contract formation, preventing ex post reclassification of the applicable law based on later market-targeting conduct.

Submission of a Set-Off Declaration Cannot Imply Waiver of Limitation Defense in Unfair Loan Litigation

On 11 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the scope of Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in light of the principle of effectiveness, in a case concerning the procedural consequences of annulment of a consumer mortgage loan contract containing unfair terms. The case (C-767/24, Kuszycka), referred by the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland), arose from restitution proceedings brought by mBank S.A. against a consumer, ML, seeking repayment of the loan capital after the contract had to be declared void, despite the bank’s claim being time-barred under national law. The Court held that EU law precludes national case-law under which the consumer’s submission of a declaration of set-off is automatically treated as an implied waiver of the objection that the seller’s claim is time-barred, even where that objection is raised expressly and simultaneously. Such an interpretation is liable to deter consumers from exercising procedural rights, undermine the dissuasive effect of the prohibition of unfair terms, and allow the seller or supplier to benefit from its own unlawful conduct. The CJEU emphasised that a waiver of limitation cannot be presumed without verifying the consumer’s free and informed intention, regardless of legal representation, and confirmed that national courts must disapply incompatible case-law in order to ensure effective consumer protection and the full effectiveness of Directive 93/13.

Distributors May Be Sanctioned for Incorrect Nicotine Labelling, but Flat-Rate Fines Breach the Principle of Proportionality

On 11 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Articles 23(2) and 23(3) of Directive 2014/40/EU, read in conjunction with Article 2(40) and Article 20(4)(b)(i), in a case concerning administrative penalties imposed on distributors of refill containers for electronic cigarettes bearing incorrect indications of nicotine content. The case (C-665/24), referred by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), arose from fines imposed on Diamond Flavours BV and UEG Holland BV for supplying refill containers to retail outlets where the nicotine content indicated on the unit packets exceeded the actual content. The CJEU held, first, that the obligation to ensure that non-compliant products are not placed on the market applies at all stages of the supply chain, including the supply by distributors to retail outlets, and is not limited to sales to consumers. Secondly, the Court ruled that while strict liability regimes and fines of a criminal nature may be compatible with Directive 2014/40 in light of the objective of ensuring a high level of health protection, national legislation imposing flat-rate fines that cannot be adjusted to reflect the seriousness of the breach and the individual circumstances of the case is disproportionate and therefore precluded by EU law. The judgment thus confirms broad enforcement powers against distributors, while reaffirming that penalty systems must respect proportionality and cannot disregard the concrete gravity of the infringement, even where consumer health protection is at stake.

National Regulatory Authorities May Impose Broad Information Obligations on Parcel Delivery Operators, Subject to Proportionality

On 18 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the scope of the powers of national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in the postal sector under Regulation 2018/644 and Directive 97/67 in a case concerning general and symmetrical obligations to provide information imposed by the Italian authority AGCOM on parcel delivery service providers. The case (C-345/24), referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), arose from challenges brought by several operators against regulatory measures requiring disclosure of information on pricing conditions, contractual arrangements with undertakings contributing to the provision of services, and the economic and legal conditions of workers, including subcontracted labour. The CJEU held, first, that Regulation 2018/644 applies to all parcel delivery service providers, irrespective of whether the services concerned are domestic or cross-border, save for specific exclusions. Secondly, the Court distinguished ex ante regulatory powers aimed at monitoring markets and preventing distortions of competitionfrom the ex post application of competition law, holding that the former may justify broad information requestsenabling a forward-looking assessment of market conditions. Lastly, the CJEU ruled that Articles 22 and 22a of Directive 97/67 and Article 4 of Regulation 2018/644 do not preclude an NRA from imposing such obligations, provided that they are suitable to ensure the performance of the authority’s tasks, necessary for that purpose and proportionate, in that they do not impose an undue administrative burden on operators, the assessment of proportionality being a matter for the referring court.

Res Judicata Cannot Prevent Ex Officio Review of Unfair Penalty Clauses After Cassation

On 18 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the scope of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC, read in light of the principle of effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter, in a case concerning the ex officio review of unfair contractual terms in proceedings remitted following cassation. The case (C-320/24), referred by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy), arose from litigation between two consumers and a property developer admitted to insolvency proceedings, relating to the termination of a preliminary contract for the sale of immovable property and the validity of a penalty clause allowing the seller to retain advance payments in the event of non-performance. The Court held that EU law precludes national procedural rules under which the principle of res judicata prevents a national court, to which a case has been remitted following cassation, from examining of its own motion the unfairness of a contractual term, where neither the consumer nor the national courts had previously carried out such a review. Such an approach is liable to render consumer protection ineffective, allow unfair terms to be treated as implicitly valid without any reasoned judicial assessment, and undermine the dissuasive effect of Directive 93/13. The CJEU emphasised that the obligation to review unfair terms cannot be neutralised by rules on finality, even where the consumer raised the unfairness only at a late stage of the proceedings, and confirmed that national courts must disapply procedural rules that make the exercise of consumer rights impossible or excessively difficult.

Margin Squeeze Analysis Requires Dominance on the Upstream Market and a Substitutability-Based Market Definition

On 18 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 102 TFEU in a case concerning the assessment of an alleged margin squeeze by a vertically integrated undertaking active in the wholesale fuel market, with potential adverse effects on competition and consumer welfare. The case (C-260/24), referred by the Administrativen sad Sofia-oblast (Bulgaria), arose from proceedings between Lukoil Bulgaria EOOD and the Bulgarian competition authority concerning a finding of abuse of a dominant position based on pricing practices whereby fuel sold after payment of excise duty was priced below fuel sold under an excise duty suspension arrangement. The Court held that, in order to establish a margin squeeze, a competition authority must demonstrate the existence of a dominant position on the upstream market, on the basis of market shares or other relevant structural characteristics, and must show that the prices applied on a linked downstream market are capable of producing an exclusionary effect on competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking, to the detriment of effective competition and ultimately of consumers. The CJEU further ruled that only products displaying a sufficient degree of substitutability may be included in the same relevant product market, and that while fuels such as petrol and diesel may be grouped together at wholesale level depending on storage and supply conditions, the exclusion of LPG must be objectively justified by differences in infrastructure, transport or regulatory requirements, which it is for the national court to verify.

Trade Marks Corresponding to Designers’ Names May Be Revoked if Their Use Misleads Consumers as to Creative Origin

On 18 December 2025, the CJEUclarified the interpretation of Article 12(2)(b) of Directive 2008/95 and Article 20(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 in a case concerning the revocation of trade marks liable to mislead the public following their assignment. The case (C-168/24), referred by the Cour de cassation (France), arose from proceedings between PMJC SAS and the designer [W] [X], [M] [X] and [X] Créative SAS, his heirs and a related company, concerning the use of trade marks corresponding to the designer’s surname in such a way as to make the public believe that he was still involved in the design of the goods bearing those marks. The Court held that EU law does not preclude the revocation of a trade mark consisting of a designer’s name where, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the use made of that mark gives rise to actual deception or a sufficiently serious risk of deception as to the creative origin of the goods, even though the mere fact that the designer is no longer involved is not, in itself, sufficient. The CJEU emphasised that the assessment must focus on the perception of the average consumer, that creative origin may constitute a relevant product characteristic capable of misleading the public, and that trade mark protection cannot be used as an unfair instrument to attract consumers by fostering a false belief as to the designer’s involvement.

Royalties Charged by Copyright Collecting Societies Must Reflect Hotel Room Occupancy to Avoid Unfair Prices under Article 102 TFEU

On 18 December 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 102(a) TFEU in a case concerning the calculation of copyright royalties by a collective management organisation in a dominant position. The case (C-161/24), referred by the Krajský soud v Brně (Czech Republic), arose from proceedings between OSA, z.s., a copyright collective management organisation, and the Czech competition authority concerning fines imposed for charging hotel establishments royalties calculated without taking account of room occupancy rates. The Court held that EU law does not preclude finding an abuse of dominant position where royalties are calculated on a flat-rate basis that ignores actual or foreseeable occupancy, since the economic value of the licence depends on the scope of actual use, and such a method may lead to unfair prices within the meaning of Article 102(a) TFEU. The CJEU emphasised that the assessment must consider all relevant circumstances, including the feasibility of taking occupancy into account, that no proof of direct consumer harm is required where the practice is capable of impairing the competitive structure, and that an appreciable effect on trade between Member States may be established where the collecting society also manages the rights of foreign rightholders, thereby potentially affecting consumers and market conditions beyond the national level.

Review of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: November 2025

Jurisprudência

November 2025 brought a series of noteworthy judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), shaping key aspects of consumer law. These decisions not only clarify the interpretation of EU directives and regulations but also reinforce fundamental principles such as consumer protection, legal certainty, and market fairness. Below is an overview of the most relevant rulings delivered in the last month (end of October and November to date), highlighting their practical implications for businesses, consumers, and regulators across the EU.

Withdrawal Period in Linked Vehicle Credit Agreements Starts Only After Full Disclosure of Mandatory Information

On 30 October 2025, the CJEU clarified that the withdrawal period for a consumer credit agreement linked to a vehicle purchase does not begin until all mandatory information, including the specific interest rate for late payment, has been duly communicated to the consumer. The case (C-143/23), referred by the Regional Court of Ravensburg (Germany) and involving KI v. Mercedes-Benz Bank AG and FA v. Volkswagen Bank GmbH, concerned the scope of the withdrawal right under Directive 2008/48/EC. The Court held that compensation for depreciation must reflect only the actual use of the vehicle, excluding unrelated costs such as dealer margins, resale expenses or VAT. The Court also confirmed that Directive 2008/48 does not fully harmonise the legal consequences of withdrawal, leaving Member States discretion to regulate the repayment of capital and interest provided that national rules do not render the exercise of the withdrawal right impossible or excessively difficult. The ruling reinforces the principle of effectiveness, enhancing consumer protection while maintaining contractual balance within linked credit agreements.

Choice-of-Court Agreements Between Natural Persons Not Invalidated by National Economic-Activity Requirements

On 30 October 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The case (C-398/24), referred by the Supreme Court of Estonia, concerned a dispute between two natural persons regarding the transfer of a flat, in which the parties had agreed that Estonian law would apply and that any disputes would be resolved by a specific Estonian court. The Court held that a national-law condition requiring a link with the economic or professional activity of the parties does not render the choice-of-court agreement “null and void as to its substantive validity” within the meaning of EU law. The judgment strengthens party autonomy and the effectiveness of jurisdiction agreements, ensuring that individuals, including consumers, can rely on predictable contractual arrangements, while preventing national legislation from imposing additional validity conditions that would undermine freedom of choice.

Delay Compensation Must Be Calculated on the Basis of the Originally Scheduled Arrival Time

On 30 October 2025, the CJEU held that when an air carrier postpones a flight and issues a new booking confirmation with revised departure and arrival times, the delay for compensation purposes under Regulation 261/2004 must be assessed by reference to the originally scheduled arrival time. The case (C-558/24), referred by the Regional Court of Landshut (Germany), concerned a dispute between Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Tasimacilik AS and Myflyright GmbH. The Court confirmed that a mere postponement of flight times, without any change to the route or flight number, constitutes a delay, not a cancellation, and that passengers arriving three hours or more after the originally scheduled time suffer an irreversible loss of time entitling them to compensation. Allowing airlines to rely on unilaterally modified arrival times would undermine the regulation’s objective of ensuring a high level of passenger protection, enabling carriers to avoid liability simply by issuing last-minute confirmations with later times. The Court therefore ruled that the revised booking confirmation is irrelevant for calculating delay length: compensation is due whenever the arrival exceeds the three-hour threshold measured against the initial timetable.

Non-Profit Associations Can Qualify as “Travellers” Under EU Package Travel Rules

On 13 November 2025, the CJEU held that a legal person, such as a non-profit association, that books a package travel contract in its own name but on behalf of its members qualifies as a “traveller” under Article 3(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302. The case (C-445/24), referred by the Court of Cassation (Belgium), concerned a dispute between MS Amlin Insurance SE and (W)onderweg VZW. The Court emphasised that the definition of “traveller” (“any person who seeks to conclude a contract or is entitled to travel under a concluded contract”) does not distinguish between natural and legal persons. Even though the association cannot physically travel, it can conclude contracts for the benefit of those who will. Denying such an entity the status of “traveller” would undermine the directive’s objective of ensuring a high level of protection, particularly for vulnerable persons. The ruling ensures that associations and other legal entities acting on behalf of their members may invoke rights such as insolvency protection, confirming that EU law protects the contracting entity, not only the individuals who ultimately travel.

“Non-Alcoholic Gin” Prohibited and Validity of Regulation 2019/787 Confirmed

On 13 November 2025, the CJEU held that a beverage marketed as “non-alcoholic gin” cannot lawfully use the designation “gin” under Regulation 2019/787. The case (C-563/24), referred by the Regional Court of Potsdam (Germany), involved a dispute between Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV and PB Vi Goods GmbH. The Court found that Article 10(7) expressly prohibits the use of protected spirit drink names for products that do not fulfil the category’s essential requirements, including production with ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin and reaching a minimum alcoholic strength of 37.5%. The addition of “non-alcoholic” does not circumvent this prohibition, which also extends to qualified or imitative designations. Article 12(1) was held inapplicable because it concerns foodstuffs produced using alcohol, whereas the product at issue was water-based. Turning to validity, the Court rejected the challenge based on Article 16 of the Charter, holding that the restriction affects only the use of the legal name, not the manufacture or sale of non-alcoholic juniper-flavoured beverages. The measure was found suitable and necessary to protect consumers, prevent misleading impressions, safeguard fair competition, and defend the reputation of EU spirit drinks. The Court thus confirmed both the prohibition and the validity of Article 10(7).

Individuals Hiring Lawyers to Form Companies May Be Consumers, Not Undertakings

On 13 November 2025, the CJEU clarified the scope of Directive 2011/7/EU on late payment in commercial transactions and Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The case (C-197/24), referred by the City Court of Bratislava IV (Slovakia), concerned a dispute between AK, a legal services company, and RU, a natural person who hired the firm to establish a commercial company of which he intended to become co-founder, member and managing director. The Court held that engaging a lawyer to form a company does not automatically classify the individual as an undertaking, nor does it automatically render the transaction “commercial” under Directive 2011/7. The Court further confirmed that such a person may be regarded as a consumer under Directive 93/13, provided they were not acting within an independent professional or economic activity at the time of contracting. The ruling strengthens legal certainty for individuals entering into legal-service contracts and ensures that national provisions on legal fees are interpreted consistently with EU consumer-protection rules, preventing reclassification as “undertakings” based solely on future entrepreneurial intentions.

Use of Email Addresses for Marketing Must Comply with Directive 2002/58

On 13 November 2025, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Directive 2002/58 with respect to the use of email addresses for direct marketing. The case (C-654/23), referred by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest (Romania), involved a dispute between Inteligo Media SA and the National Supervisory Authority for the Processing of Personal Data (ANSPDCP). The Court held that a user’s email address is obtained “in the context of the sale of a product or service” when the user creates a free account on an online platform giving access to a limited number of articles, a daily legislative newsletter, and optional paid content. Sending such a newsletter constitutes a use of electronic mail for direct marketing of similar products or services under Article 13(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/58. Furthermore, when unsolicited communications comply with Article 13(2), the conditions for lawful processing under Article 6(1) GDPR do not apply. The ruling confirms that the e-privacy rules, read alongside Article 95 GDPR, form the regulatory framework for email marketing, ensuring consumer protection and respect for users’ rights.

National Authorities Must Assess Civil Engineering Access Obligations Against All Objectives of the EU Electronic Communications Code

On 20 November 2025, the CJEU clarified that when a national regulatory authority considers imposing an obligation of access to civil engineering assets on an undertaking with significant market power under Article 72 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972, it must ensure compliance with all objectives listed in Article 3 of the directive. The case (C-327/24), referred by the Administrative Court of Cologne (Germany), involved a dispute between Telekom Deutschland GmbH and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Court emphasised that the objectives, promoting connectivity and high-capacity networks, fostering competition, contributing to the internal market, and protecting consumers, must all be taken into account on an equal footing, with none enjoying priority. This ruling ensures that national authorities adopt access obligations in a way fully aligned with the broader goals of the European Electronic Communications Code, rather than focusing solely on competition or end-user considerations.