Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
European Union decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
The Grand Chamber held that freedom of expression, including political parody, may be due cause for use of a reputed trade mark, but only after a full balancing exercise.
Joined Lithuanian procurement references on national-security exclusion grounds, classified information, reasons-giving, and judicial review under EU law.
The Court held that Article 20(1) of Regulation 1782/2003 does not confer rights on individuals, while Article 68(1) of Regulation 796/2004 covers area and parcel-boundary information.
The General Court dismissed Aclass A/S’s cross-claim as inadmissible, holding that it had no vested and present interest in challenging a decision that had upheld its position.
The Court held that a non-listed company may be placed on a national asset-freeze list if its assets belong to or are controlled by a listed person, and that national courts must conduct effective review on a solid evidential basis.
The Advocate General proposes that Slovak enforcement rules must allow ex officio review of a creditor’s creditworthiness assessment under Directive 2008/48 when that issue was not examined earlier.
The Advocate General proposes that ‘anchorage area within the jurisdiction of the port’ under Directive 2019/883 covers anchorages under the authority exercising port powers, not just the port operator.
The Court held that EU law does not preclude Romanian rules requiring certain salary-dispute panels to refer new points of law to the supreme court or await an existing referral.
Advocate General Norkus addresses EU return-detention conditions, allowing non-punitive house rules if Charter-compliant and calling for strict review where Article 16(1) may be breached.
The Court held that Directive 2017/1132 does not require public disclosure of all shareholders’ data, and that unrestricted public access under the GDPR is disproportionate.
Explore more
