Annual report 2024 : the year in review.
Date: 2025-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, General Court (EU), activity report

W

E

I

V

E

R

N

I

R

A

E

Y

E

H

T

4

2

0

2

T

R

O

P

E

R

L

A

U

N

N

A

Annual Report 2024

The Year in Review

curia.europa.eu

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court of Justice of the European Union,

upholding European Union law.

The Court of Justice of the European Union is one of seven European institutions.

It is the judicial institution of the European Union and its task is to ensure compliance with 

EU law by overseeing the uniform interpretation and application of the Treaties and ensuring the 

lawfulness of measures adopted by the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

The Institution helps to preserve the values of the European Union and, through its case-law, 

works towards the building of Europe.

The Court of Justice of the European Union comprises two courts: the Court of Justice and 

the General Court.

Annual Report 2024
The Year in Review

Table of Contents

Introduction by the President .................................................................................................  4

1.  2024 at a glance .....................................................................................................................  7

A. The year in pictures ........................................................................................................   8

B. The year in figures ...........................................................................................................   16

The Institution in 2024 ....................................................................................................................  16

The judicial year (Court of Justice and General Court) .........................................................  17

The Linguistic Services ...................................................................................................................  18

2.  Judicial activities ...................................................................................................................  21

A. The Court of Justice in 2024 ........................................................................................   22

Activities and developments at the Court of Justice ............................................................  22

Members of the Court of Justice .................................................................................................  26

B. The General Court in 2024 ...........................................................................................   30

Activities and developments at the General Court ..............................................................  30

Innovations in case-law ..................................................................................................................  32

Members of the General Court ...................................................................................................  36

C. Case-law in 2024 ...............................................................................................................   40

Focus  2020 Mobility Package: fair competition and improvement of working 

            conditions for a safer, more sustainable and fairer road sector ........................  40

Focus  Organic production and labelling of organic products ..........................................  42

Focus  Public access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines ....................  46

Focus  Restrictive measures adopted in respect of actions undermining or 

            threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence 

            of Ukraine ..............................................................................................................................  50

A look back at major judgments of the year ...........................................................................  54

3.  An administration at the service of justice ..............................................................  75

A. Introduction by the Registrar ....................................................................................   76

B. Key events of the year ...................................................................................................   78

Partial transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings .................................................  78

The 20th anniversary of the 2004 enlargement ....................................................................  82

A stronger ethical framework for staff at the Court of Justice of the European Union  85

C. Public relations .................................................................................................................   88

4.  An environmentally friendly institution ....................................................................  91

5.  Looking ahead ........................................................................................................................  95

6.  Stay connected! .....................................................................................................................  99

 Introduction 
by the 

President

 Koen Lenaerts

President  
of the Court of Justice  
of the European Union

In a complex global context, the Court of Justice of the 

European Union has maintained its course, guided by the 

mission to uphold justice and the rule of law entrusted to it 

by the Treaties. It has continued its daily work of protecting 

the fundamental values of the European Union and helping 

to construct a common legal system for the Member States. 

It has also prepared new ground crucial for its functioning 

in the years ahead.

The past year marked the beginning of a new era for the Institution and 

the judicial relationships between the Court of Justice and the General 

Court, as well as between those two courts and the courts and tribunals 

of the EU Member States. The partial transfer of jurisdiction to give 

preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice to the General Court was 

a significant step in the development of the judicial architecture of the 

European Union. It will ensure, in the interest of individuals, a better 

distribution of the workload between the two courts, allowing the 

Court of Justice to devote greater focus to its role as the constitutional 

and supreme court of the European Union. This major reform was 

made possible thanks to the collegiate and effective cooperation 

between the two courts throughout its course, from the drafting 

of the request to amend the Statute made to the EU legislature to its 

actual implementation. Implementation of the reform was the result 

of close cooperation between the registries and services involved at the 

Institution so as to enable the General Court to deal with this new 

stream of litigation in the best possible conditions.

Furthermore, in May 2024, the Institution celebrated the twentieth 

anniversary of the European Union’s biggest enlargement, both in terms 

of the number of citizens and States concerned and from a symbolic 

perspective. The celebration took the form of a conference highlighting 

how the accession of 10 new States has enriched our shared heritage 

by providing a wealth of new and diverse national histories, cultures 

and legal traditions. Bringing together the two halves of the continent – 

East and West – in a joint and historic constitutional project, their 

accession was also a concrete and striking illustration that the vision 

of peace towards which the European Union strives lies at the very heart 

of the European integration process.

4

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Introduction by the President

From an organisational standpoint, 2024 saw a further partial – and very significant – replacement of Judges 

at the Court of Justice, with nine new Members taking the oath, five of whom were previously Judges at the 

General Court. This wide-ranging reshuffle, which was preceded by the delivery of a great many judgments 

on 4 October 2024, required flawless organisation so as to provide the best possible welcome to the Members 

and their Chambers and to minimise the impact of the changes on the continued orderly conduct of the 

Institution’s activities.

Looking ahead to 2025, the Institution as a whole will face exciting new challenges: challenges relating to its 

external relations, with the redesign of its website and its case-law search engine, as well as the planned 

launch of a Web TV dedicated to the Court’s activities. The aim of these projects is to meet the needs of legal 

professionals and to contribute to the fundamental objective of bringing justice closer to citizens, so that they 

are able to understand the Court’s role and its decisions. The challenges will, however, also affect how we work 

going forward, involving continued work on the potential uses of artificial intelligence and on the integrated 

case-management system IT programme. This work will be undertaken with the goal of enabling our institution 

to become more efficient in order to handle the increase in the number of cases, whilst preserving the highest 

level of quality that is crucial to the Institution performing its mission of upholding justice and observing all the 

requirements underlying that mission.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Introduction by the President

5

 2024 at a glance

1 A. The year in pictures

February 

European Parliament approves partial transfer of jurisdiction 

to give preliminary rulings to the General Court 

In order to balance out the litigation workload between the two courts of the 

European Union and to allow it to devote greater focus to its role as the constitutional 

and supreme court, in November 2022 the Court of Justice submitted a request to the 

European Union legislature for the Statute of the Court to be amended to allow the 

partial transfer of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings to the General Court. 

After several months’ examination and negotiation as part of the legislative process, 

this significant reform is approved by the European Parliament on 27 February 

by a very large majority. 

‘Justice, Future Generations and Environment’ international 

conference at the French Constitutional Council

Mr Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court of Justice, travels to Paris for 

an international conference organised by the French Constitutional Council and the 

French Institute for Studies and Research on Law and Justice. This unprecedented 

conference brings together hundreds of presidents and judges of national, regional 

and international supreme courts to discuss the growing impact of the concept 

of ‘future generations’ in environmental litigation.

Visit by the President of the Czech Republic, Mr Petr Pavel

The President of the Czech Republic, Mr Petr Pavel, is welcomed by Mr Koen Lenaerts, 

President of the Court of Justice, and by Mr Jan Passer, Judge at the Court of Justice, 

and Ms Petra Škvařilová-Pelzl and Mr David Petrlík, Judges at the General Court. 

At a meeting with some of the Institution’s Czech staff members, the delegation 

is able to admire the painting Na cestě by Czech painter Míla Doleželová, on loan from 

Masaryk University, and its message of hope, freedom and humanism.

March

8

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

First annual dialogue between the European Parliament and 

the Court

Building on the high quality of exchanges that took place during the discussions on the 

draft regulation transferring jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings from the Court 

of Justice to the General Court in certain specific areas, the Parliament and the Court 

have decided to continue their dialogue on the basis of an annual meeting devoted 

to topics of common interest relating to the proper administration of justice, in strict 

compliance with the separation of powers. The meetings will cover European citizens’ 

perception of justice and respect for the rule of law as well as any improvements 

that could be made to the functioning of the judicial system, in pursuit of the goal 

of bringing justice closer to European citizens.

Solemn undertaking by three new Members of the European 

Court of Auditors

Appointed by the Council of the European Union, the new Members of the European 

Court of Auditors, Ms Katarína Kaszasová, Mr Alejandro Blanco Fernández and 

Mr João Leão, give their solemn undertaking before the Court.  

April

Opening of a historic exhibition at the Court

An exhibition devoted to the history of the Institution is opened at the Court. 

Composed of photographs, works of art and rare items, it maps the history of the 

courts and its buildings and is open to all visitors.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

9

Final of the ‘European Law Moot Court’ competition

Organised for the first time in 1988, the ‘European Law Moot Court’ is the world’s 

largest moot competition on EU law. The 2024 edition is won by the University 

of Madrid, which faced off in the final against the Italian university Roma Tre.

Formal sitting to give eulogies

Formal tribute is paid to the memory of John L. Murray, Irish Judge at the 

Court of Justice (1991-1999), who died in January 2023; Philippe Léger, French 

Advocate General at the Court of Justice (1994-2006), who died in January 2023; 

and Waltraud Hakenberg, Registrar of the Civil Service Tribunal (2005-2016), who died 

in January 2024. 

May

2O

YEARS

Meeting of Judges and conference to mark the 20th anniversary 

of the 2004 enlargement

On 1 May 2004, ten new Member States joined the European Union: 

the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, 

Slovenia and Slovakia. To mark the 20th anniversary of that event, the annual Meeting 

of Judges and a conference are held at the Court.

10

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

June

Presentation of the artwork ‘LL’ by Lithuanian artist 

Kazys Varnelis

The artwork ‘LL’ (1972) by Lithuanian artist Kazys Varnelis is presented to the Court, 

at a ceremony attended by its President, Mr Koen Lenaerts, the Lithuanian Deputy 

Minister for Justice, Ms Jurga Greičienė, and the Head of the Iconography Department 

at the National Museum of Lithuania, Ms Jolanta Bernotaitytė.

Visit to Warsaw by a delegation from the General Court

A delegation from the General Court composed of its President, 

Mr Marc van der Woude, and the Polish Judges Ms Krystyna Kowalik-Bańczyk and 

Ms Nina Półtorak, together with the Lithuanian Judge Mr Saulius Lukas Kalėda, 

travels to Warsaw, to a meeting organised by the Polish Supreme Administrative 

Court at the Warsaw Bar, in order to give a presentation on the role of the General 

Court and to strengthen ties with the national courts responsible for the areas 

of law concerned by the partial transfer of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings 

to the General Court.

September

Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 

and of the General Court

Important amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and of the 

General Court enter into force on 1 September. They implement the amendments 

to the Statute of the Court of Justice in the context of the partial transfer of the 

jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings to the General Court, applicable from 

1 October, and modernise the procedures before the two courts.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

11

Visit by a delegation from the Supreme Court 

of the United States

Continuing the regular meetings that have taken place since 1998, this visit serves 

to strengthen the close and historic ties between the Supreme Court of the United 

States and the Court of Justice.

Installation of an artwork in the Garden of Multilingualism

The artwork Genus, created by the Luxembourg artist Simone Decker, is installed 

in the Garden of Multilingualism, located on the periphery of the Court’s grounds. 

Designed specifically for the Court, it takes inspiration from multilingualism and 

symbolises the linguistic and cultural diversity of the European Union.

October

Partial transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings

The rules on the partial transfer of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings from 

the Court of Justice to the General Court become applicable on 1 October. In six 

specific areas, references for a preliminary ruling are from this date forward handled 

by the General Court. The first request for a preliminary ruling transferred to the 

General Court on 17 October (T-534/24, Gotek) is a Croatian-language case and was 

made by the Administrative Court, Osijek.

12

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

Partial replacement of the Court of Justice and entry into office 

of new Members of the General Court  

A formal sitting is held in the Main Courtroom of the Court of Justice 

to mark, on the one hand, the departure from office of Mr Lars Bay Larsen, 

Ms Alexandra Prechal, Mr Jean-Claude Bonichot, Mr Peter George Xuereb, 

Ms Lucia Serena Rossi, Mr Priit Pikamäe, Mr Nils Wahl and Mr Anthony Michael 

Collins, and, on the other hand, the taking of the oath by nine new Members 

of the Court of Justice, namely Mr Bernardus Smulders, Mr Massimo Condinanzi, 

Mr Fredrik Schalin, Mr Stéphane Gervasoni, Mr Niels Fenger and Ms Ramona Frendo, 

as Judges, and Mr Dean Spielmann, Mr Andrea Biondi and Mr Rimvydas Norkus, 

as Advocates General, as well as by two new Judges of the General Court, 

Mr Hervé Cassagnabère and Mr Raphaël Meyer.

Election of the President, Vice-President and First Advocate 

General of the Court of Justice

Mr Koen Lenaerts is re-elected by his peers to serve as President 

of the Court of Justice of the European Union for the next three years. Similarly, 

Mr Thomas von Danwitz is elected Vice-President of the Court of Justice, succeeding 

Mr Lars Bay Larsen. Mr Maciej Szpunar is re-elected First Advocate General of the 

Court of Justice.

November

Artificial Intelligence training month

The goal of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) training campaign is to present the 

opportunities and challenges associated with the use of AI. It seeks to demystify the 

field of AI and to promote the ethical and responsible use of AI-based tools.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

13

Solemn undertaking by three new Members 

of the Court of Auditors 

Appointed by the Council of the European Union, Mr Petri Sarvamaa, 

Mr Hans Lindblad and Mr Carlo Alberto Manfredi Selvaggi, the new Members of the 

European Court of Auditors, give their solemn undertaking before the Court.

Visit by the Court of Justice to the European Court of Human 

Rights

The President of the Court of Justice, Mr Koen Lenaerts, accompanied by a delegation 

from the Court, travels to the European Court of Human Rights for the courts’ annual 

meeting. The discussions cover three main topics: ‘Climate change: a challenge for 

the two European courts’, ‘Mass surveillance and the protection of personal data’ and 

‘Protecting the rights of disabled people’.

6th meeting of the RJUE correspondents in Brussels

The sixth meeting of the correspondents of the Judicial Network of the European 

Union is held in Brussels, for the first time outside Luxembourg, under the auspices 

of the Belgian Council of State. The meeting focuses on the future of cooperation 

within the RJUE and the application of the principle of consistent interpretation 

by national courts.

14

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

December

Disability Awareness Day at the Court

The Institution, which is fully committed to accessibility and inclusion through multiple 

initiatives, organises Disability Awareness Day, which this year has as its theme 

‘Inclusion through sport: diversity is our strength’.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

15

 B. The year in figures

 The Institution in 2024

81 judges from 
27 Member States

Court of Justice

27 judges

11  Advocates 

General

General Court

54  

judges

Budget : EUR 504 million

2 267

officials and other staff

61%  

women

39%men

The representation of women in positions of responsibility 

within the administration means that the Court exceeds 

the average for the European institutions.

Women hold:

54% of administration posts 
 49%  

of middle and senior 
management posts

ce- ur a

Percentage of procedural documents lodged via e-Curia:

text

outlines | colours

91% Court of Justice 
11 692 e-Curia accounts

outlines | bw

96% General Cout

16

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

outlines | colours | dark bgr

outlines | bw| dark bgr

2018 September

 The judicial year (Court of Justice and General Court)

1 706 cases brought 
1 785 cases resolved
2 911 cases pending

Average duration of proceedings: 18.1 months

96% General Cout

Justice and the General Court, and national courts in the 

context of requests for a preliminary ruling to the Court 

of Justice, to send and receive procedural documents to 

and from the Registries purely by electronic means.

Watch the video on YouTube

e-Curia is an IT application enabling the representatives 

e-Curia: An application for the exchange 

of the parties in cases brought before the Court of 

of legal documents with the Court

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

17

 The Linguistic Services

As a multilingual judicial institution, the Court must be able to deal with a case irrespective 

of the official language of the European Union in which it has been brought. It then ensures 

that its case-law is disseminated in all those languages.

24 

languages  
of the case 

552 language 

combinations

written documents 

608  lawyer-linguists to translate 
1 366 000  pages to be  

translated 

1 371 000 pages translated

Multilingualism at the Court of Justice 

of the European Union – Ensuring equal access to justice

Watch the video on YouTube

18

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

503 

hearings and meetings with 

simultaneous interpretation

70 

interpreters for hearings and 
meetings

At the Court, translations are produced in accordance 

with mandatory language arrangements, which 

provide for the possibility to use any of the 24 official 

languages of the European Union. The documents 

to be translated are all highly technical legal texts. 

That is why the Court’s language service employs only 

lawyer-linguists who have completed their education 

in law and who have a thorough knowledge of at 

least two official languages other than their mother 

tongue.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / 2024 at a glance

19

 Judicial activities

2 A. The Court of Justice in 2024

The Court of Justice deals mainly with requests for a preliminary ruling. When a national court is uncertain as to the 

interpretation or validity of an EU rule, it stays the proceedings before it and refers the matter to the Court of Justice. 

When the matter has been clarified by the Court of Justice’s decision, the national court is then in a position to settle 

the dispute before it. In cases calling for a response within a very short time (for example, in relation to asylum, 

border control, child abduction, and so forth), an urgent preliminary ruling procedure may be used.

The Court also deals with direct actions, which seek either the annulment of an EU act (‘action for annulment’) 

or a declaration that a Member State is failing to comply with EU law (‘action for failure to fulfil obligations’). 

If the Member State does not comply with the judgment finding that it has failed to fulfil its obligations, a second 

action, known as an action for ‘twofold failure to fulfil obligations’, may result in the Court of Justice imposing a 

financial penalty on it.

Furthermore, appeals may be brought against decisions handed down by the General Court. The Court of Justice may 

set aside such decisions of the General Court.

Lastly, requests for an opinion may be made to the Court of Justice to determine the compatibility with the Treaties 

of an agreement which the European Union envisages concluding with a non-member State or an international 

organisation (submitted by a Member State or by a European institution).

 Activities and developments 
at the Court of Justice

The past year was marked by the adoption and the implementation 

of the legislative reform of the judicial architecture of the European 

Union by European Parliament and Council Regulation 2024/2019, 

which seeks, at the request of the Court of Justice, to balance the 

litigation workload between the two courts of the European Union 

by taking advantage of the doubling of the number of judges at the 

General Court resolved upon in European Parliament and Council 

Regulation 2015/2422 in 2015. The Court of Justice should thus be in 

a position to continue to perform, within reasonable time limits, its task 

of interpreting EU law even though it is experiencing a significant 

increase in the litigation brought before it and a rise in the number 

of complex and sensitive cases concerning, in particular, constitutional 

questions or matters related to fundamental rights. For instance, 

in 2024, over 900 new cases were brought before the Court of Justice, 

 Koen Lenaerts

President  
of the Court of Justice  
of the European Union

22

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

920 

cases brought

573 preliminary ruling 
procedures, including 6 urgent 
preliminary ruling procedures)

Member States from which the 

most requests originate

Italiy 

Germany  

Poland 

Austria 

Bulgaria   

98

66

47

39

38

53 direct actions, 
including: 39 actions for failure 
to fulfil obligations and 3 actions 
for ‘twofold failure to fulfil 

obligations’

277 appeals against decisions 
of the General Court

15 applications for legal aid

1 request for an opinion

A party who is unable to meet the costs of 

proceedings may apply for legal aid.

a figure close to the 2019 record, which confirms the upwards 

trend observed in recent years and underlines the need for this 

reform.

More specifically, the reform essentially saw a partial transfer 

of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice 

to the General Court. That transfer, which has been effective 

since 1 October 2024, covers six specific areas, namely the 

common system of value added tax, excise duties, the Customs 

Code, the tariff classification of goods under the Combined 

Nomenclature, compensation and assistance of passengers in the 

event of denied boarding or of delay or cancellation of transport 

services and the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance 

trading.

However, the Court of Justice retains jurisdiction to hear 

and determine requests for a preliminary ruling which, 

although they fall within one or more of those specific areas, 

also concern other matters or raise separate questions 

concerned with the interpretation of primary law (including 

the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), 

public international law or general principles of EU law.

The reform is expected to result in a significant reduction in the 

workload of the Court of Justice in connection with preliminary 

rulings, which appears to be confirmed by the initial estimates 

covering the final three months of the past year.

The goal of a further strand of the reform is to preserve the 

effectiveness of the procedure for appeal against decisions of the 

General Court. In order to allow the Court of Justice to focus 

on appeals raising significant questions of law, the mechanism 

used to determine whether appeals are allowed to proceed has 

been expanded, since 1 September 2024, to include decisions 

of the General Court relating to the decisions of six new 

independent boards of appeal of European bodies, offices and 

agencies, which have been added to the four boards of appeal 

initially earmarked when that mechanism was introduced. 

In addition, the mechanism has also been extended to cover 

disputes relating to the performance of contracts containing 

an arbitration clause.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

23

 
 
 
Finally, the aim of the reform is to strengthen the transparency of the preliminary ruling procedure and, 

in so doing, to provide a better understanding of the decisions handed down by the Court of Justice or the 

General Court. From now on, written observations lodged in preliminary rulings will be published on the 

Institution’s website, within a reasonable time after the case has closed, unless the author of those observations 

objects to their publication.

Alongside the amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, implementation 

of the reform has resulted in amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the 

Rules of Procedure of the General Court in order, inter alia, to clarify the arrangements for the initial handling 

of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted under the ‘one-stop shop’ principle and the procedure applicable 

to requests transmitted to the General Court by the Court of Justice. Furthermore, the Rules of Procedure 

of the General Court also contain other new provisions which seek to learn lessons from the health crisis 

and technological developments, in particular as regards the option of the parties or their representatives 

addressing the General Court by videoconference, subject to compliance with specific legal and technical 

requirements, the protection of personal data when dealing with cases, the arrangements for lodging and 

serving procedural documents via the e-Curia application and the broadcasting of certain hearings on the 

internet.

The Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling 

procedures and the Practice Directions to parties have likewise been amended accordingly.

Turning to the composition of the Institution, in June 2024, we mourned the death of Mr Ilešič (Slovenia), who had 

served as a judge at the Court of Justice since 2004.

The past year also saw Judge Safjan (Poland) take a leave of absence in January 2024, before a partial and 

very significant replacement of Judges at the Court of Justice in October, with the departure from office 

of eight Members: Vice-President Bay Larsen (Denmark), Judge Bonichot (France), Judge Prechal (Netherlands), 

Judge Xuereb (Malta), Judge Rossi (Italy), Judge Wahl (Sweden) and Advocates General Pikamäe (Estonia) and 

Collins (Ireland), and the entry into office of nine new Members: Judge Smulders (Netherlands), Advocate General 

Spielmann (Luxembourg), Judges Condinanzi (Italy) and Schalin (Sweden), Advocate General Biondi (Italy), 

Judges Gervasoni (France) and Fenger (Denmark), Judge Frendo (Malta) and Advocate General Norkus (Lithuania).

The statistics for the past year reveal that a very high number of cases were brought before the Court 

(920, almost 100 more than in each of the last three years) and closed by it (863 cases, 80 more than in the 

previous year); the latter figure is due in large part to the constraints associated with the partial replacement 

of the Judges at the Court. There were thus 1 206 pending cases as of 31 December 2024. The average duration 

of proceedings, all manner of cases combined, stood at 17.7 months in 2024.

24

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

1 206

cases pending as of  
31 December 2024

Principal matters dealt with:

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice   

State aid and competition 

Economic and monetary policy 

Approximation of laws  

Consumer protection   

Environment 

Taxation 

Common foreign and security policy 

Social policy 

Intellectual property 

141

137

103

85

63

62

61

57

48

45

863 

cases resolved

580 preliminary ruling procedures, 
including: 5 urgent preliminary ruling 
procedures

53 direct actions, including: 26 failures 
to fulfil obligations found against 
16 Member States

1 judgment finding a ‘twofold failure to fulfil 
obligations’

213 appeals against decisions of the General 
Court, including: 48 appeals in which the 
decision adopted by the General Court was set 

aside

Average duration of proceedings: 
17.7 months

Average duration of urgent preliminary ruling 
proceedings: 3.3 months

See detailed statistics for the Court of Justice.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Members of the Court of Justice

The Court of Justice is composed of 27 Judges and 

11 Advocates General.

The Judges and Advocates General are appointed 

by common accord of the governments of the 

The Advocates General are responsible for 

delivering, with complete impartiality and 

independence, an ‘opinion’ in the cases 

assigned to them. This opinion is not binding, 

but allows for an additional view to be provided 

Member States after consultation with a panel responsible 

on the subject matter of the dispute.

for providing an opinion on prospective candidates’ 

suitability to perform the duties concerned. Judges are 

appointed for a term of office of six years, which 

is renewable.

They are chosen from among individuals whose 

independence is beyond doubt and who possess the 

qualifications required for appointment, in their respective 

countries, to the highest judicial offices, or who are 

of recognised competence.

The Judges perform their duties in a totally impartial and 

independent manner.

The Judges of the Court of Justice appoint, from amongst 

themselves, the President and Vice-President. The Judges 

and Advocates General appoint the Registrar for a term 

of office of six years.

The partial replacement of Judges at the Court of Justice in October 2024 saw the entry into 

office of nine new Members: Judge Smulders (Netherlands), Advocate General Spielmann 

(Luxembourg), Judges Condinanzi (Italy) and Schalin (Sweden), Advocate General Biondi (Italy), 

Judges Gervasoni (France) and Fenger (Denmark), Judge Frendo (Malta) and Advocate General 

Norkus (Lithuania).

In memoriam 

The Slovenian Judge Marko Ilešič died in June 2024, at which time he was a serving Member of the 

Court. He was the first Slovenian Member appointed to the Court on Slovenia’s accession to the 

European Union in 2004. Respected and admired, both professionally and personally, for his legal 

expertise, intellect and extensive language skills, as well as for his great humanity, Mr Ilešič made 

a major contribution to the development and promotion of EU law and enhanced the reputation of 

Slovenian culture.  

26

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

27

K. Lenaerts
President

T. von Danwitz
Vice-President

F. Biltgen
President  
of the First Chamber

K. Jürimäe
President  
of the Second Chamber

C. Lycourgos
President  
of the Third Chamber

I. Jarukaitis
President  
of the Fourth Chamber

M. L. Arastey 
Sahún
President  
of the Fifth Chamber

M. Szpunar
First Advocate 
General

S. Rodin
President  
of the Eighth Chamber

A. Kumin
President  
of the Sixth Chamber

N. Jääskinen
President  
of the Ninth Chamber

D. Gratsias
President  
of the Tenth Chamber

M. Gavalec
President  
of the Seventh Chamber

J. Kokott
Advocate General

A. Arabadjiev
Judge

M. Campos
Sánchez- Bordona
Advocate General

E. Regan
Judge

N. J. Cardoso da
Silva Piçarra
Judge

J. Richard de la 
Tour
Advocate General

A. Rantos
Advocate General

28

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

I. Ziemele
Judge

J. Passer
Judge

N. Emiliou
Avocat général

Z. Csehi
Judge

O. Spineanu-
Matei
Judge

T. Ćapeta
Advocate General

L. Medina
Advocate General

B. Smulders
Judge

D. Spielmann
Advocate General

M. Condinanzi
Judge

F. Schalin
Judge

A. Biondi
Advocate General

S. Gervasoni
Judge

N. Fenger
Judge

R. Frendo
Judge

R. Norkus
Advocate General

A. Calot Escobar
Registrar

Order of Precedence as from 9 October 2024

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

29

 B. The General Court in 2024

Proceedings may primarily be brought before the General Court, at first instance, in direct actions brought by 

natural or legal persons (individuals, companies, associations, and so forth), where they are directly and individually 

concerned, and by Member States against acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union, 

and in direct actions seeking compensation for damage caused by the institutions or their staff. 

The decisions of the General Court may be the subject of an appeal, limited to points of law, before the Court of Justice. 

In cases which have already been considered twice (by an independent board of appeal and then by the General 

Court), the Court of Justice will allow an appeal to proceed only if it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the 

unity, consistency or development of EU law.

Since 1 October 2024, the General Court has also had jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary 

ruling, transferred by the Court of Justice, which fall exclusively into one or more of the following six specific areas: 

the common system of value added tax; excise duties; the Customs Code; the tariff classification of goods under the 

Combined Nomenclature; compensation and assistance of passengers in the case of denied boarding or of delay or 

cancellation of transport services; the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.

A large part of the litigation before it is economic in nature: intellectual property (EU trade marks and designs), 

competition, State aid, and banking and financial supervision.

The General Court also has jurisdiction to adjudicate in civil service disputes between the European Union and its staff.

 Activities and developments at the 
General Court

2024 was a particularly significant year for the General Court as it saw 

the entry into force of Regulation 2024/2019, which reformed the judicial 

architecture of the European Union. The partial transfer of jurisdiction 

to give preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice to the General Court 

thus took effect on 1 October 2024.

Pursuant to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European 

Union, the General Court now has jurisdiction to hear and determine 

requests for a preliminary ruling which fall exclusively within one 

or more of the following six specific areas: the common system of VAT, 

excise duties, the Customs Code, the tariff classification of goods, 

compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied 

boarding or of delay or cancellation of transport services, and the 

system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading (new Article 50b). 

 Marc van der 
Woude

President  
of the General Court  
of the European Union

30

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

786cases brought 
667 

direct actions, including:

19 requests for a preliminary ruling lodged between 1 October 

and 31 December 2024 were the subject of a transfer decision.

Internally, the General Court had to reorganise its structure 

by appointing ten judges sitting in the chamber designated to deal 

with requests for a preliminary ruling, as well as the President 

of that chamber, Mr Papasavvas, Vice-President of the General 

Court. To ensure optimum handling of requests for a preliminary 

ruling, the General Court also appointed three judges 

Intellectual and industrial 

to perform the duties of Advocates General. In addition, its Rules 

property  

EU civil service  

268

76

of Procedure now provide for the possibility of rulings being given, 

in particular in certain preliminary ruling cases, in an intermediate 

chamber composed of nine judges.

State aid and competition 

33

7 actions brought by 
Member States

30 applications for legal aid

19 references for a 

preliminary ruling

A party who is unable to meet the costs of the 

proceedings may apply for legal aid.

Similarly, from 1 September 2024, provision was made to extend 

the mechanism to determine whether appeals against decisions 

of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent 

board of appeal of one of the bodies, offices or agencies of the 

European Union are allowed to proceed (new Article 58a of the 

Statute of the Court, also inserted by Regulation 2024/2019). 

This strand of the reform also places greater responsibility on the 

General Court to ensure the consistency and the uniformity of the 

law in the fields of law concerned.

The reform coincided with the departure, on 7 October 2024, 

of five Members of the General Court, who were appointed 

Judges at the Court of Justice. Judge Gervasoni, Presidents of the 

Chamber Spielmann and Schalin, Judge Frendo and Judge Norkus 

thus left the General Court. The General Court thanks them for 

their long and important contribution to its case-law. On that 

same date, Judges Cassagnabère and Meyer took the oath as new 

Members of the General Court.

That major reorganisation and the departures of Members did 

not, however, slow down the pace of judicial activities at the 

General Court, which was able to close 922 cases over the course 

of 2024. Since only 786 cases were brought during that same year, 

the number of cases pending was thus reduced. The average 

duration of proceedings of 18.5 months demonstrates that cases 

are being managed effectively, bearing in mind that the General 

Court is able to react even more speedily where the particular 

circumstances of the case so require. For instance, it was able 

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

31

 
 
 
to give its first judgment in the field of digital markets in 8.2 months (judgment in Bytedance v Commission, 

T-1077/23).

In 2024, 20.2% of the cases closed were closed by chambers sitting in extended composition. In addition, the 

General Court is continuing its approach of ruling in cases of particular importance to, in particular, the rule 

of law sitting as a Grand Chamber, composed of 15 judges (see Chapter entitled ‘A look back at major judgments 

of the year’). It was sitting as a Grand Chamber that the General Court gave judgment in the cases of Ordre 

néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council, Medel and Others v Council, Fridman and 

Others v Council and Timchenko and Timchenko v Council.

In the light of its new jurisdiction in preliminary rulings, as well as its new responsibilities following the extension 

of the mechanism to determine whether appeals are allowed to proceed, the General Court has equipped itself 

with all the tools necessary to deal effectively and proactively with the cases brought before it, whilst preparing 

for the upcoming three-year period beginning in October 2025.

Savvas Papasavvas

Vice-President  
of the General Court

 Innovations in case-law

2024 marked the return to centre stage of the Grand Chamber, the 

highest-ranking formation of the General Court, from which, to date, 

rulings have been sought only rarely and intermittently. Composed 

of fifteen judges, the Grand Chamber hears and determines the most 

important cases as well as those which present a legal difficulty or are 

characterised by special circumstances (Article 28(1) of the Rules 

of Procedure of the General Court). Six decisions bringing together 

a number of cases have thus been given by the Grand Chamber in the 

course of the past year against the backdrop of, on the one hand, 

Russian aggressions against Ukraine and, on the other hand, the 

implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility as part of the 

NextGenerationEU recovery plan.

First, in its judgments of 11 September 2024, Fridman and Others v 

Council and Timchenko and Timchenko v Council (T-635/22 and T-644/22), 

the General Court confirmed the Council’s power, first, to impose 

obligations on persons subject to restrictive measures to report funds 

and to cooperate with the competent national authorities and, second, 

to treat the failure to comply with those obligations as a circumvention 

of fund-freezing measures.

32

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Next, in its judgments of 2 October 2024, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v 

Council, Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris and Couturier v Council and ACE v Council (T-797/22, T-798/22 and 

T-828/22), the General Court confirmed the legality of the prohibition on providing, directly or indirectly, 

legal advisory services to the Russian Government and to legal persons, entities and bodies established in Russia 

(Council Regulation No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising 

the situation in Ukraine). The cases dealt with the question of whether there is a fundamental right of access 

to a lawyer, specifically in situations which have no link with judicial proceedings. The General Court dismissed 

the actions, but took care, inter alia, to clarify the scope of both the right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the right to professional secrecy (Article 7).

Finally, by an order of 4 June 2024, Medel and Others v Council (T-530/22 to T-533/22), the General Court dismissed 

the applications for annulment of the implementing decision by which the Council approved the assessment 

of Poland’s recovery and resilience plan and specified the milestones and targets which that Member State 

must achieve in order for the financial contribution made available to it in the contested decision to be granted. 

The Grand Chamber took the view that the applicants, four associations representing judges at international 

level whose members were, as a general rule, national professional associations, including Polish associations, 

could not rely on their standing to bring proceedings.

This fresh impetus given to the Grand Chamber is set to continue in 2025, as other cases are currently 

pending before it. This will probably be accompanied by references to the intermediate chamber, established 

by Regulation 2024/2019 to supplement the arsenal of high-ranking chambers at the General Court’s disposal.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

33

1 705

pending cases  

(as of 31 December 2024)

Principal matters dealt with:

Institutional law 

552

Intellectual and industrial property 

322

Economic and monetary policy 

State aid and competition 

EU civil service  

Restrictive measures 

Access to documents 

Agriculture 

Public contracts 

Public health 

167

153

112

91

41

30

29

24

922cases resolved

832 

direct actions, including:

Intellectual and industrial property  

State aid and competition 

EU civil service  

276

98

76

1 reference for a preliminary ruling 

Average duration of proceedings: 
18.5 months

Proportion of decisions subject to an appeal before 
the Court of Justice:  35%

See detailed statistics for the General Court.

34

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

35

 Members of the General Court

The General Court is composed of two Judges from each Member State.

The Judges are chosen from among individuals whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the 

qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices. They are appointed by common accord 

of the governments of the Member States after consultation with a panel responsible for giving an opinion 

on candidates’ suitability. They are appointed for a term of office of six years, which is renewable. They appoint, 

from amongst themselves, the President and Vice-President for a period of three years, and appoint the 

Registrar for a term of office of six years.

The Judges perform their duties in a totally impartial and independent manner.

Against the backdrop of the partial transfer, from 1 October 2024, of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings 

from the Court of Justice to the General Court, the General Court elected Mr Martín y Pérez de Nanclares and 

Ms Brkan as Judges called upon to perform the duties of Advocates General in connection with the handling 

of requests for a preliminary ruling, and Mr Gâlea as an alternate should they be prevented from attending.

In October 2024, two new Members, Judges Cassagnabère (France) and Meyer (Luxembourg), 

entered into office at the General Court, replacing Judges Gervasoni and Spielmann, who were 

both appointed to the Court of Justice.

36

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

37

M. van der Woude
President

S. Papasavvas
Vice-President

A. Marcoulli
President of the 
Second Chamber

R. da Silva Passos
President of the 
Fourth Chamber

J. Svenningsen
President of the Fifth 
Chamber

M. J. Costeira
President of the 
Sixth Chamber

K. Kowalik-
Bańczyk
President of the 
Seventh Chamber

A. Kornezov
President of the 
Eighth Chamber

L. Truchot
President of the 
Ninth Chamber 

O. Porchia
President of the 
Tenth Chamber

R. Mastroianni
President of the First 
Chamber

P. Škvařilová-
Pelzl
President of the 
Third Chamber

M. Jaeger
Judge

H. Kanninen
Judge

J. Schwarcz
Judge

M. Kancheva
Judge

E. Buttigieg
Judge

V. Tomljenović
Judge

L. Madise
Judge

N. Półtorak
Judge

I. Reine
Judge

P. Nihoul
Judge

U. Öberg
Judge

C. Mac Eochaidh
Judge

G. De Baere
Judge

T. Pynnä
Judge

J. C. Laitenberger
Judge

J. Martín y Pérez
de Nanclares
Judge

G. Hesse
Judge

M. Sampol 
Pucurull
Judge

38

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

M. Stancu
Judge

I. Nõmm
Judge

G. Steinfatt
Judge

T. Perišin
Judge

D. Petrlík
Judge

M. Brkan
Judge

P. Zilgalvis
Judge

K.Kecsmár
Judge

I. Gâlea
Judge

I. Dimitrakopoulos
Judge

D. Kukovec
Judge

S. Kingston
Judge

T. Tóth
Judge

B. Ricziová
Judge

E. Tichy-
Fisslberger
Judge

W. Valasidis
Judge

S. Verschuur
Judge

S. L. Kalėda
Judge

L. Spangsberg
Grønfeldt
Judge

H. Cassagnabère
Judge

R. Meyer
Judge

V. Di Bucci
Registrar

Order of Precedence as from 9 October 2024

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

39

 C. Case-law in 2024

 Focus  2020 Mobility Package: fair competition and 

improvement of working conditions for a safer, 
more sustainable and fairer road sector

Judgment in Lithuania and Others v Parliament and Council of 
4 October 2024 (C-541/20 to C-555/20)

2020 Mobility Package

In 2020, a series of reforms was adopted by the European Union in the road transport sector with two main goals:

1. Improving drivers’ working conditions:

– by prohibiting the weekly rest period from being taken in vehicles;

–  by guaranteeing regular returns to their place of residence or the operational centre (every three or four 

weeks) so that they can spend their rest period there;

–  by bringing forward the date of entry into force of the obligation to install second-generation intelligent 

tachographs.

2. Establishing fair competition:

–  by requiring vehicles to return to an operational centre situated in the Member State of establishment of the 

transport undertaking every eight weeks;

–  by introducing a four-day waiting period after a cabotage cycle carried out in a host Member State 

(during which non-resident hauliers are not allowed to carry out cabotage operations with the same vehicle in 

that Member State);

–  by classifying drivers as ‘posted workers’ in certain specific cases, so that they benefit from the terms and 

conditions of employment and remuneration in force in the host Member State.

A cabotage operation is transport carried out within a Member State by a haulier not 

established in that Member State. Such transport is allowed as long as it is not carried out in a 

way that creates a permanent activity in that Member State.

A second-generation intelligent tachograph is an electronic device which records drivers’ 

driving times, breaks and rest periods. It helps to ensure road safety, guarantee compliance 

with drivers’ working conditions and prevent fraud.

40

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

The Mobility Package consists of three legislative acts concerning the legal rules governing road transport. 

This ambitious reform prompted fierce debate, resulting in a series of legal actions. Thus, seven Member States – 

Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta and Poland – brought before the Court of Justice fifteen 

actions for annulment of certain provisions of the Mobility Package.

The Court’s judgment broadly confirmed the validity of the Mobility Package.

Whilst acknowledging that improving drivers’ working conditions may result in an increase in the costs borne 

by transport undertakings, the Court observed that those rules, which apply without distinction throughout 

the European Union, do not discriminate against transport undertakings established in Member States situated 

‘on the periphery of the Union’. If those rules have a greater impact on certain undertakings, that is because they 

made an economic choice to provide their services to recipients situated in Member States distant from their 

own place of establishment.

As for the classification as ‘posted workers’ (which allows drivers to benefit from the minimum terms and 

conditions of employment and remuneration in the host Member State, rather than those potentially less 

favourable terms and conditions in the State of establishment of the transport undertaking), this is a measure 

intended to guarantee fair working conditions and to combat unfair competitive practices. 

This development, although it is beneficial to employees, prompted debate amongst Member States, some 

of which, in particular low-wage States, feared an increase in costs for their undertakings and the administrative 

complexity of the new rules. The Court backed this measure, which was adopted by the EU legislature with the 

aim of striking a fair balance between the various interests involved.

As regards the obligation to comply with a four-day waiting period after a cabotage cycle carried out in a host 

Member State, the Court pointed out that the purpose of that period is to protect local undertakings and prevent 

unfair competition, by stopping repeated cabotage operations from ultimately constituting de facto permanent 

activity in the host Member State. Some Member States contested that obligation, claiming that it restricts 

undertakings’ flexibility by forcing them to adjust their itineraries to avoid periods of downtime that result in lost 

revenue. The Court rejected those arguments, observing that the measure simply prohibits cabotage operations 

in the same Member State during the waiting period, which does not prevent other international transport 

or cabotage operations from being carried out in other Member States.

The Court did, however, annul the obligation requiring vehicles to return to the transport undertaking’s 

operational centre every eight weeks. It held that the Parliament and the Council had not established that they 

had sufficient information to assess the proportionality of that measure and its social, environmental and 

economic impacts.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

41

 Focus  Organic production and labelling of organic 

products

Judgment in Herbaria Kräuterparadies II (C-240/23)

The German company Herbaria manufactures the beverage ‘Blutquick’, which is marketed as a food supplement. 

That beverage contains organically produced ingredients, as well as added non-plant vitamins and ferrous 

gluconate. Its packaging bears the European Union organic production logo and a reference to ‘controlled 

organic agriculture’.

In January 2012, the German authorities had prohibited Herbaria from referring to protected organic production 

because EU law allows vitamins and minerals to be added to processed produce bearing the term ‘organic’ only 

if their use is legally required.

The Court of Justice, in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling made in an initial case (Case C-137/13), 

had held that the use of such substances is deemed to be legally required only if a rule of EU law or a compatible 

national rule directly requires that those substances be added to a foodstuff in order for that foodstuff to be 

placed on the market. Since the vitamins and ferrous gluconate added to ‘Blutquick’ did not satisfy that 

requirement, Herbaria’s action was dismissed by the German court which had referred the matter to the Court 

of Justice.

The case was subsequently referred to the German Federal Administrative Court, before which Herbaria 

no longer contested the prohibition on displaying the European Union organic production logo but rather alleged 

that there was unequal treatment between its product and a similar product imported from the United States.

The United States are recognised under European law as a third country whose production and control 

rules are equivalent to those of the European Union. According to Herbaria, this means that products from 

the United States that comply with US production rules can be marketed in the European Union as organic 

products. The company claims that that situation gives rise to unequal treatment, as the rival American products 

can bear the European Union organic production logo without complying with the organic production rules 

applicable in relation to it.

The German Federal Administrative Court put questions to the Court of Justice in this regard.

In its judgment, the Court took the view that only products compliant with all the requirements laid down 

in the Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products can use the European Union 

organic logo. That logo cannot therefore be used for products manufactured in a third country according 

to rules merely equivalent to those provided for in EU law. That prohibition extends to the use of terms referring 

to such production.

The Court observes that allowing the use of that logo and such terms both for products – whether manufactured 

in the European Union or in third countries – compliant with the European organic production standards and 

for products manufactured in third countries according to standards merely equivalent to European organic 

production standards would risk harming fair competition within the internal market. This could also mislead 

42

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

consumers, even though the very purpose of the logo is to inform consumers, in a clear and unambiguous 

manner, that the product is fully compliant with the requirements laid down in that regulation.

However, the Court did hold that the organic production logo of a third country may be used for products 

manufactured in that country, even where it contains terms referring to organic production.

The European Union organic logo

The European Union organic logo gives a coherent visual identity to organic products produced 

in the European Union. This makes it easier for consumers to identify organic products and helps 

farmers to market them in all the Member States.

The organic logo can only be used on products that have been certified as organic by an authorised 

body, thereby ensuring compliance with the strict conditions on how they must be produced, 

processed, transported and stored. The organic logo can also only be used on products which 

contain at least 95% organic ingredients, and only if the remaining 5% fulfil strict conditions. 

The same ingredient cannot be present in organic and non-organic form.

Regulation 2018/848

Regulation 2018/48 on organic production and labelling of organic products aims to ensure fair competition, the proper functioning of 

the internal market in that sector and consumer confidence in products labelled as organic.

It establishes general and detailed production rules. In relation to labelling, it requires that products comply with the rules on the 

provision of information to consumers, specifically to avoid any confusion or deception. It also lays down specific provisions relating to 

the labelling of organic and in-conversion products to protect both the interests of operators – who want their products to be correctly 

identified and to enjoy fair market conditions – and those of consumers.

Other judgments of the Court of Justice concerning organic products

Judgment in Kamin und Grill Shop of12 October 2017 (C-289/16)

Under Regulation No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic 

products, an operator marketing organic products is required to submit his, her or 

its undertaking to a control system. Operators who sell products directly to the final 

consumer or user may be exempted from that obligation subject to certain conditions. 

The Court of Justice held that the sale must occur in the presence of both the operator 

or his, her or its sales personnel and the final consumer. Therefore, operators 

marketing such products online cannot qualify for that exemption.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

43

 
Judgment in Œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs of 26 February 2019 (C-497/17)

Regulation No 834/2007 does not allow the European Union organic logo to be placed 

on products derived from animals which have been slaughtered in accordance 

with religious rites without first being stunned, a process performed subject to the 

conditions laid down in Regulation No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the 

time of killing.

Judgment in Natumi of 29 April 2021 (C-815/19)

Regulation No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of 

Regulation No 834/2007 precludes the use of a powder obtained from the cleaned, 

dried and ground sediment of the alga Lithothamnium calcareum, as a non-organic 

ingredient of agricultural origin, in the processing of organic foodstuffs (inter alia  

rice- and soya-based organic drinks) for the purpose of their enrichment with calcium.

44

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

45

 Focus  Public access to the purchase agreements for 

COVID-19 vaccines

Judgments in Auken and Others v Commission and Courtois and Others v 
Commission (T-689/21 and T-761/21)

In June 2020, the European Union launched its strategy to acquire COVID-19 vaccines. 

In that context, the Commission signed an agreement with the 27 Member States, 

authorising the Commission to conclude in their name advance purchase agreements 

with manufacturers.

Since it was in the interest of public health for vaccines to be deployed early, 

the period for the development of the vaccines by the pharmaceutical undertakings 

was shortened. To compensate for the risks incurred by those undertakings, 

the Commission and the Member States incorporated the principle of risk sharing 

between the manufacturer and the Member States into their vaccination strategy, 

thereby reducing the manufacturer’s liability should adverse reactions arise from the 

use of its product.

The versions of the contracts that were made public were redacted, removing 

information about the financial risks, donations and resales, as well as the declarations 

that there were no conflicts of interest.

In 2021, citizens and MEPs contested the European Commission’s partial refusal to provide full access 

to certain documents connected with the 2020 vaccine purchase agreements. The access requests concerned 

indemnification clauses for the pharmaceutical undertakings. Under those clauses, laboratories were required 

to compensate victims in cases of wilful misconduct or serious negligence during manufacturing, whereas, 

in other cases, such liability rested with the Member States.

The citizens and MEPs also sought access to the declarations that there were no conflicts of interest on the part 

of the members of the team which negotiated the purchase of the vaccines. They wanted to shed light on how 

the negotiations had been conducted, particularly in relation to a mega-contract concluded in May 2021 for the 

purchase of 1.8 billion additional doses of vaccine worth EUR 35 billion.

The Commission had granted only partial access to those documents and had published redacted versions 

of them, relying on the confidentiality of business practices and the protection of privacy.

Further to two actions brought before it challenging the Commission’s decisions, the General Court annulled 

those decisions in part.

With regard to the request for wider access to the indemnification clauses, the General Court observed that 

the reason for their inclusion in the contracts – namely, to offset the risks incurred by the pharmaceutical 

undertakings in connection with the shortening of the period for the development of the vaccines – had 

been endorsed by the Member States and was in the public domain. It held that the Commission had 

46

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

not demonstrated how wider access to those clauses, to certain definitions contained in the contracts 

(such as definitions of ‘wilful misconduct’ and ‘best reasonable efforts’) and to the provisions on donations and 

resales of the vaccines would actually undermine the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical undertakings 

concerned.

As for the request relating to the disclosure – in the declarations that there were no conflicts of interest – of the 

identity of the members of the negotiating team, the General Court confirmed that that request had a public 

interest purpose. Only by disclosing their identities is it possible to ascertain whether the members of the 

negotiating team had no conflicts of interest. In addition, such transparency in the contract negotiation process 

strengthens EU citizens’ trust in the Commission’s vaccination strategy and helps to combat the dissemination 

of false information. The General Court thus held that the Commission had not correctly weighed up the 

interests at issue, that is, the absence of any conflict of interest and the risk that the right of privacy might 

be infringed.

Public access to documents: a key element of transparency

The purpose of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 

is to grant the public the widest possible access to European Parliament, Council and 

Commission documents. It seeks to strengthen the transparency, legitimacy and 

accountability of the Institutions.

However, that right is not absolute. Provision is made for exceptions in order to 

protect certain public or private interests, such as public security, the confidentiality 

of internal deliberations and legal advice, financial, economic or commercial interests, 

or even the protection of personal data.

The Institutions have to reconcile transparency with the protection of those interests, 

by assessing on a case-by-case basis whether disclosure risks undermining them. 

Disclosure may ultimately be required if an overriding public interest is demonstrated.

If access is refused, the applicant may submit a request for review to the Institution 

concerned and then – in the event of a further refusal – refer the matter to the 

European Ombudsman or bring an action before the General Court.

Some principles enshrined by the General Court and the Court of Justice

In the judgment in De Capitani v Parliament (T-540/15), the General Court took the view 

that the EU institutions can refuse access to certain documents that are part of the 

legislative process only in duly justified cases.

The institution or body refusing access must demonstrate how such access would 

‘specifically, effectively and reasonably foreseeably’ compromise the interest 

protected by one of the exceptions provided for in Regulation No 1049/2001. 

As the Court of Justice held in the judgment in ClientEarth v Commission (C-57/16 P), 

a hypothetical or vague risk of an interest being undermined is not sufficient to justify 

a refusal of access.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

47

The question of access to the written submission lodged by a Member State or 

an institution in the context of proceedings before the Court of Justice has been 

addressed in a number of significant judgments. In the case of Commission v Breyer  

(C-213/15 P), the Court of Justice took the view that the written submissions 

of a Member State held by the Commission fall within the scope of Regulation 

No 1049/2001. While the confidentiality of those submissions must be preserved for 

the duration of the court proceedings, the Commission cannot, without relying on 

another ground, refuse to grant access to them once the proceedings have concluded.

The Court of Justice had previously established that general presumption of  

non-disclosure during court proceedings in the judgment in Sweden and Others v 

API and Commission (C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P) in relation to the written 

submissions lodged by an EU institution. However, once the proceedings have 

concluded, each request must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine 

whether the exceptions under the Regulation apply.

48

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

49

 Focus  Restrictive measures adopted in respect 

of actions undermining or threatening 
the territorial integrity, sovereignty and 
independence of Ukraine

Judgments in Mazepin v Council of 20 March 2024 (T-743/22); Fridman 
and Others v Council and Timchenko and Timchenko v Council of 
11 September 2024 (T-635/22 and T-644/22); and in NSD v Council of 
11 September 2024 (T-494/22)

Restrictive measures, or ‘sanctions’, are a key tool of the European Union’s foreign and security policy. They can 

take the form of asset freezes, bans on entry into the territory of the European Union or economic sanctions. 

Their objective is to defend the fundamental values, essential interests and security of the European Union, 

by exerting pressure on the persons or entities targeted, including the governments of third countries, to effect 

a change in their policies or their conduct.

The actions undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine adopted 

by Russia since 2014 and, in particular, its war of aggression launched against Ukraine in 2022 have led to the 

European Union intensifying the sanctions against natural and legal persons providing support to the Russian 

Government. Having prompted challenges to their legitimacy and their scope, related Council decisions have 

been the subject of dozens of cases brought before the General Court.

They illustrate the efforts made to reconcile the rigour of the sanctions imposed, which is necessary for them 

to be effective, with the protection of individual rights. The General Court has confirmed that the European 

Union has broad powers to take action against the provision of economic and material support to the Russian 

Government, whilst requiring solid evidence and sound justification for the measures adopted.

Judgment in NSD v Council (T-494/22)

The General Court confirmed the sanctions imposed on the Russian company National Settlement Depository 

(NSD). Regarded by the Council as essential within the financial system in Russia, that company provided 

material and financial support to both the Russian Government and the Russian Central Bank.

The General Court observed that, as a financial institution of systemic importance, NSD enabled the Russian 

Government to mobilise significant resources, which were used for actions intended to destabilise Ukraine. 

The General Court also rejected NSD’s arguments that the restrictive measures led to funds belonging 

to customers not covered by the sanctions being frozen, pointing out that such customers can bring actions 

before the national courts to challenge an infringement of their right to property as a side-effect of the measures 

applied against NSD.

50

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Judgment in Mazepin v Council (T-743/22)

The General Court annulled the retention of Mr Nikita Mazepin, a former Formula 1 driver, on the list of persons 

subject to sanctions. His name was included on that list by the Council because of the association with his father, 

Mr Dmitry Mazepin, an influential businessman whose activities generate significant revenue for the Russian 

Government and who was alleged to be the main sponsor of his son’s time as a driver for the Haas Team.

The General Court found that the association between Mr Dmitry Mazepin and his son was not sufficiently 

established, observing inter alia that the latter was no longer a driver for the team in question when the 

contested decision was adopted. Furthermore, the General Court pointed out that the family relationship alone 

is not sufficient, as such, to establish common interests capable of justifying the sanctions being maintained 

in respect of Mr Nikita Mazepin.

Judgments in Fridman and Others v Council and Timchenko and Timchenko v Council 
(T-635/22 and T-644/22)

The General Court confirmed the obligation on the persons and entities subject to sanctions to report 

their funds and to cooperate with the competent authorities to prevent fund-freezing measures from being 

circumvented by means of legal and financial arrangements. Those obligations, established by the Council, 

were deemed necessary to ensure that sanctions are effective and uniform in all the Member States. 

The General Court also rejected the challenges claiming that the Council had exercised criminal powers which 

are reserved for the Member States, finding that those measures are not criminal in nature and that their 

adoption is consistent with the framework provided for in EU law in all respects.

European Union sanctions against Russia

Since March 2014, the European Union has progressively imposed restrictive 

measures on Russia in response, in particular, to the illegal annexation of 

Crimea (2014) and the military aggression against Ukraine (2022).

Those measures are designed to weaken Russia’s economic base, depriving 

it of critical technologies and markets and significantly curtailing its ability to 

wage war. The EU has also adopted sanctions against Belarus, Iran and North 

Korea in response to their support for Russia in the war against Ukraine.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

51

Over 2 300 individuals and entities (banks, political parties, companies, 

paramilitary groups) are subject to sanctions. Those sanctions include:

• 

• 

bans on entering the European Union;

asset freezes;

•  making funds unavailable.

The Council estimates the value of the private assets frozen in the 

European Union to be EUR 24.9 billion. The assets of the Russian 

Central Bank that have been blocked in the European Union amount to 

EUR 210 billion.

Restrictive measures, which are imposed pursuant to Council 

decisions, are subject to ongoing monitoring. They are extended, 

or amended where appropriate, if the Council considers that its 

objectives have not been achieved.

52

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

53

 A look back at major judgments of the year

Fundamental rights

The European Union guarantees the protection of fundamental rights, in particular by means 

of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which lists the individual, civic, political, economic and 

social rights of European citizens. Respect for human rights is one of the European Union’s 

founding values and an essential obligation when implementing EU policies and programmes. 

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights – binding rules with real-world impact

Watch the video on YouTube

In 2022, in response to the intensification of Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Council of the European 

Union adopted sanctions intended to exert pressure on Russia. Those measures include the prohibition 

on providing legal advisory services to the Russian Government or to legal persons, entities or bodies 

established in Russia. Belgian and French lawyers applied to the General Court seeking the annulment of that 

prohibition. In their view, the prohibition violates the fundamental rights guaranteeing the right to consult 

a lawyer in order to obtain legal advice. The General Court pointed to the fundamental right to effective judicial 

protection, which includes the right to obtain advice and be represented by a lawyer in the context of existing 

or probable litigation. However, it observed that the contested prohibition does not concern legal advisory 

services in connection with judicial proceedings nor those provided to natural persons. The General Court 

therefore dismissed the actions.

Judgments in Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council, Ordre des avocats 

à la Cour de Paris and Couturier v Council and ACE v Council of 2 October 2024 (T-797/22, T-798/22 and 

T-828/22)

In 2006, the newspaper Le Monde published an article linking the football club Real Madrid to doping 

rumours. Having been found guilty of defamation in Spain, the newspaper contested the enforcement of that 

judgment in France, in the name of the freedom of the press. The French Court of Cassation referred the 

matter to the Court of Justice, which held that the mutual recognition of judgments can be restricted if such 

recognition is in manifest breach of fundamental rights. In the Court’s view, disproportionate sanctions against 

the media, such as excessive damages, risk deterring the press from covering matters of public interest, 

which is incompatible with the democratic values of the European Union.

Judgment in Real Madrid Club de Fútbol of 4 October 2024 (C-633/22)

54

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Personal data

The European Union has set out detailed rules for the protection of personal data. In order 

to be lawful, the processing and storage of such data must satisfy the conditions laid down 

in legislation, be limited to what is strictly necessary and not disproportionately undermine 

the right to privacy.

The Court of Justice in the Digital World

Watch the video on YouTube

A German citizen challenged before a German court the refusal by the City of Wiesbaden to issue him with a new 

identity card that did not include his fingerprints. The German court asked the Court of Justice to determine the 

validity of the EU Regulation providing for the obligation to include two fingerprints in identity cards. The Court 

held that that obligation, which is justified by efforts to combat the production of false cards and identity 

theft, is compatible with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal 

data. It did, however, declare the regulation invalid because it had been adopted on an incorrect legal basis, 

whilst maintaining its effects until 31 December 2026 to allow for the adoption of new legislation. The regulation 

relied, wrongly, on Article 21(2) TFEU (free movement of citizens) rather than on Article 77(3) TFEU (area 

of freedom, security of justice), which requires unanimity in the Council.

Judgment in Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden of 21 March 2024 (C-61/22)

An entry was made in the Bulgarian police records in respect of an individual in the context of a criminal 

investigation for failing to tell the truth as a witness. After receiving and serving a one-year suspended 

sentence, the person in question applied for the entry to be removed from the records. Under Bulgarian law, 

the data relating to him are to be held in those records for an unlimited period until his death. The Bulgarian 

Supreme Administrative Court asked the Court of Justice about the compatibility of that legislation with EU law. 

In response, the Court held that the general and indiscriminate storage of the biometric and genetic data 

of persons with criminal convictions until their death is contrary to EU law. National legislation must provide for 

the obligation, on the part of the data controller, to review on a regular basis whether the storage of those data 

is still necessary and to allow the data subject to apply for their erasure if that is no longer the case.

Judgment in Direktor na Glavna direktsia ’Natsionalna politsia’ pri MVR – Sofia of 30 January 2024 (C-118/22)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

55

In two separate judgments, the Court of Justice provided crucial clarifications regarding authorities’ powers 

of investigation.

In a case relating to a French decree intended to protect works covered by copyright or related rights against 

offences committed on the internet, the Court explained that Member States may impose on internet access 

providers an obligation to retain IP addresses, in a general and indiscriminate manner, to enable the competent 

public authority to identify the person suspected of having committed a criminal offence. However, their 

retention must not allow precise conclusions to be drawn about the private life of the person concerned. To that 

end, the retention arrangements must ensure a genuinely watertight separation between the various categories 

of data stored. In atypical situations, where the specific features of a national procedure may – through the 

linking of the data and information collected – allow precise conclusions to be drawn about the private life of the 

persons concerned, access must be subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body.

Judgment in La Quadrature du Net II of 30 April 2024 (C-470/21)

In an Austrian case, the police had attempted to unlock the mobile telephone of the recipient of a parcel 

containing cannabis. When asked about the validity of such investigations in the light of a directive on the 

protection of personal data used by the police and judicial authorities, the Court of Justice clarified that access 

to the data stored on a mobile telephone is not necessarily limited to the fight against serious crime. If that 

were not the case, this would create a risk of impunity for criminal offences in general and therefore a risk for 

the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union. Such access, which constitutes 

a serious interference in the rights of data subjects to the protection of their personal data, does, however, 

presuppose prior authorisation by a court or an independent authority and must be proportionate. In addition, 

the national legislature must also define the factors to be taken into account for such access, such as the nature 

of the offences concerned, and the owner of the telephone must be informed once such information is no longer 

likely to jeopardise the investigations.

Judgment in Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck of 4 October 2024 (C-548/21)

56

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Equal treatment and labour law

There are more than 200 million workers in the European Union. A large number of citizens 

therefore benefit directly from the provisions of European labour law, which sets minimum 

standards for working and employment conditions and thus supplements the policies of the 

Member States.

The Court of Justice: guaranteeing equal treatment and protecting minority rights

Watch the video on YouTube

After stepping down from his post in order to take early retirement, a public employee of the Municipality 

of Copertino (Italy) sought payment of financial compensation for the days of leave which he had not taken. 

However, Italian law denies public-sector employees entitlement to such compensation. When asked about the 

interpretation of the Working Time Directive, the Court of Justice confirmed that workers are entitled to financial 

compensation if they have not taken all their leave before the end of their contract, even in the case of voluntary 

resignation. Economic considerations, such as the management of public expenditure, cannot justify that 

entitlement being denied. There is, however, one conceivable exception if the worker deliberately did not take 

leave days and if the employer gave him or her adequate notice that he or she risked losing the leave and 

encouraged him or her to take it.

Judgment in Comune di Copertino of 18 January 2024 (C-218/22)

A former professional footballer in France, who believed that certain FIFA rules had hindered his employment 

by a Belgian club, challenged those rules before the Belgian courts. Those rules, which are contained in the 

FIFA Regulations on the Status and the Transfer of Players, require the player and his new club to pay 

compensation if the player terminates his contract without ‘just cause’ before the term of that contract. The rules 

may also lead to sporting sanctions, such as the new club being banned from recruiting new players, and prevent 

an international transfer certificate from being issued as long as a dispute about the contract’s termination 

is pending. Further to a reference from the Court of Appeal of Mons, the Court of Justice held such rules to be 

incompatible with the freedom of movement of workers and EU competition law.

Judgment in FIFA of 4 October 2024 (C-650/22)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

57

 
European citizenship 

Anyone who is a national of an EU Member State is automatically a citizen of the European 

Union. Citizenship of the European Union is in addition to and does not replace national 

citizenship. Citizens of the European Union enjoy specific rights guaranteed by the EU Treaties.

The European Commission brought proceedings before the Court of Justice against the Czech Republic and 

Poland on the ground that those Member States restrict the right to become a member of a political party 

to their citizens only. In the Commission’s view, such a situation places EU citizens residing in those two States, 

without being nationals of them, in a less favourable position as regards the ability to stand as a candidate 

in municipal and European elections. The Court agreed with the Commission and found that the Czech Republic 

and Poland had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Treaties. Citizens residing in a Member State of which 

they are not nationals must be afforded equal access to the same means available to nationals of that State 

for the purpose of exercising their electoral rights effectively. This includes the right to join a political party. 

The Court took the view that that difference in treatment cannot be justified on grounds relating to respect for 

the national identity of Poland or the Czech Republic.

Judgments in Commission v Czech Republic (C-808/21) and Commission v Poland of 19 November 2024  

(C-814/21)

The Court of Justice held that a Member State cannot refuse to recognise a change of first name and gender 

lawfully acquired in another Member State. Refusal to do so hinders the exercise of the right to free movement 

and residence within the European Union. Since personal identity, including a person’s name and gender, 

is fundamental, such a refusal creates administrative and private inconvenience that is contrary to EU law.

Judgment in Mirin of 4 October 2024 (C-4/23)

58

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Consumers

EU consumer policy seeks to protect the health, safety, security and economic and legal 

interests of consumers, wherever they live, travel to or make their purchases within the 

European Union. 

The Court of Justice: Guaranteeing the Rights of 

EU Consumers

Watch the video on YouTube

A German consumer association challenged before a German court advertising relating to price reductions 

by the supermarket chain Aldi Süd. According to the association, Aldi Süd is not entitled to calculate a price 

reduction on the basis of the price immediately prior to the offer, but rather, in accordance with EU law, it must 

do so on the basis of the lowest price charged in the last 30 days. In response to questions from a German 

court, the Court of Justice confirmed that a price reduction announced in an advertisement must be calculated 

on the basis of the lowest price in the last 30 days. Traders are thus prevented from misleading the consumer, 

by increasing the price charged before announcing a price reduction and therefore displaying false price 

reductions.

Judgment in Aldi Süd of 26 September 2024 (C-330/23)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

59

Environment

The European Union is committed to preserving and improving the quality of the environment 

and to protecting human health. Its policies are based on the precautionary and preventive 

principles and on the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

The Court of Justice and the Environment

Watch the video on YouTube

Since 2019, a European Directive has prohibited goods made from oxo-degradable plastic, which fragment 

as a result of oxidation, from being placed on the market. UK companies manufacturing a pro-oxidant additive 

which, in their view, enables plastic to biodegrade more quickly than oxo-degradable plastic brought proceedings 

before the General Court. They sought compensation for the damage suffered in so far as the prohibition on the 

placing on the market of oxo-degradable plastic also applies to plastic which they classify as ‘oxo-biodegradable’. 

The General Court dismissed the action, finding that the European legislature had not made a manifest error. 

According to scientific studies, the level of biodegradation of plastic containing a pro-oxidant additive is low 

to non-existent. In addition, that type of plastic is not suitable for any form of composting. Lastly, recycling such 

plastic is problematic because the technologies available do not allow plastic containing a pro-oxidant additive 

to be identified and sorted from conventional plastic.

Judgment in Symphony Environmental Technologies and Symphony Environmental v Parliament and Others 

of 31 January 2024 (T-745/20)

Wolves, a species that is strictly protected under the Berne Convention, were the subject of two judgments 

by the Court of Justice, in which the Court considered the ‘Habitats’ Directive. In Austria, ecologist organisations 

challenged before a court in Tyrol the temporary authorisation to kill a wolf which had killed around 

20 sheep. The Court confirmed that the prohibition on hunting wolves in that Member State is valid, because 

the population of the species is not at a favourable conservation status in Austria. Furthermore, in Spain, 

an association for the conservation of the Iberian wolf contested a law adopted by the Autonomous Community 

of Castille and Leon which designates the wolf as a huntable species north of the Douro River (where it may 

be subject to management measures, whereas it enjoys strict protection south of that river). In response 

to questions referred by a Spanish court, the Court of Justice held that the wolf cannot be designated 

as a huntable species at regional level when its conservation status at national level is unfavourable.

Judgments in WWF Österreich and Others of 11 July 2024 (C-601/22) and ASCEL of 29 July 2024 (C-436/22)

60

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

The Ilva steelworks, which is located in Taranto in Apulia (southern Italy), is one of the largest steelworks 

in Europe. In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found that the steelworks had a negative impact on the 

environment and the health of local residents. Measures to reduce that impact have been provided for since 

2012, but the deadlines for their implementation have been repeatedly extended. Many residents of the area 

surrounding the steelworks have taken action before the Italian courts. Further to a reference from a Milan 

court, the Court of Justice found that major requirements relating to the grant and retention of the operating 

permit, requirements laid down by the Directive on industrial emissions, do not appear to have been satisfied. 

The operation of the steelworks must therefore be suspended if it is established that it poses serious and 

significant threats to the environment and human health.

Judgment in Ilva and Others of 25 June 2024 (C-626/22)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

61

Information society

The European Union plays a key role in the development of the information society, so as 

to foster an environment conducive to innovation and competition whilst protecting the rights 

of consumers and providing legal certainty. It guarantees that digital markets are fair and 

open, and it removes the barriers to cross-border online services within the internal market 

so that they can move freely.

The Court of Justice in the Digital World

Watch the video on YouTube

An Italian law imposed administrative obligations on online service providers established outside Italy, 

such as Airbnb, Expedia, Google and Amazon, with the stated aim of ensuring the effective enforcement 

of EU law. Providers of those services must, inter alia, be entered in a special register, provide economic 

reports and pay financial contributions. Further to a reference from an Italian court, the Court of Justice found 

such measures to be incompatible with EU law. It observed that online service providers are mainly subject 

to the legislation of the Member State in which they are established (in this case, Ireland or Luxembourg). 

Member States, such as Italy, in which they do business are bound by the principle of mutual recognition and, 

as a rule, cannot impose additional obligations which may restrict the freedom to provide those services.

Judgments in Airbnb Ireland and Amazon Services Europe (Joined Cases C-662/22 and C-667/22), Expedia  

(C-663/22), Google Ireland and Eg Vacation Rentals Ireland (Joined Cases C-664/22 and C-666/22) and 

Amazon Services Europe (C-665/22) of 30 May 2024

Bytedance Ltd is a company which, via its subsidiaries, provides the online social networking platform TikTok. 

The Commission designated Bytedance as a gatekeeper of a core platform service, pursuant to the EU Regulation 

on digital markets (Digital Market Act), which requires it to comply with a targeted set of legal obligations 

intended to enable other undertakings to compete with the gatekeeper and to prevent certain unfair practices. 

In response to the action brought before it by Bytedance against that decision, the General Court observed that 

the EU legislature had adopted the EU Regulation on digital markets to improve the functioning of the internal 

market. Finding that the criteria laid down in that regulation, inter alia the global market value and the number 

of users, are satisfied in the present case, the General Court concluded that the Commission could rightly regard 

Bytedance as a gatekeeper and therefore dismissed the action.

Judgment in Bytedance v Commission of 17 July 2024 (T-1077/23)

62

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

 
The Court of Justice in the Digital World

Watch the video on YouTube

Competition, State aid and tax rulings

The European Union applies rules to protect free competition. Practices which have as their 

object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal 

market are prohibited and may be sanctioned by fines. State aid is also prohibited where 

it is incompatible with the internal market, the Commission being vested with an important 

monitoring role in this respect by the Treaties.

The General Court – Ensuring European Union Institutions Respect European Union Law

Watch the video on YouTube

The Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project plans for a tunnel under the Baltic Sea between Rødby, on the Danish island 

of Lolland, and Puttgarden in Germany. The Danish public entity Femern A/S is entrusted with the financing, 

construction and operation of the Fixed Link. The Commission decided that the financial measures granted 

to Femern A/S by Denmark do constitute State aid, but that they are compatible with the internal market. 

Denmark and two ferry operators, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland, sought the annulment 

of that decision before the General Court. The General Court dismissed the actions, finding that the selective 

advantage granted to Femern A/S does strengthen its position on the transport services market as compared 

with the other undertakings on the market and affect trade between Member States. However, the Fixed Link 

project is of common European interest because it makes a significant contribution to the European Union’s 

transport policy objectives.

Judgments in Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission; Denmark v Commission; 

and Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission of 28 February 2024 (T-7/19, T-364/20 

and T-390/20)

Qualcomm, a US undertaking that manufactures chipsets for mobile phones and tablets, was accused by Icera 

of engaging in predatory pricing. Nvidia, after acquiring Icera, provided further information about such 

allegations. In 2019, the European Commission imposed a fine of EUR 242 million on Qualcomm for abuse 

of a dominant position, accusing it of selling chipsets at a loss to Huawei and ZTE with the intention of eliminating 

Icera, its competitor. The General Court rejected most of Qualcomm’s arguments, except that concerning the 

calculation of the fine. The General Court held that the Commission had departed, without justification, from its 

2006 guidelines and reduced the fine to EUR 238.7 million.

Judgment in Qualcomm v Commission of 18 September 2024 (T-671/19)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

63

In 2017, the European Commission had imposed a fine of approximately EUR 2.4 billion on Google for abuse 

of its dominant position on several online search markets. The Commission found that, in 13 countries of the 

European Economic Area (EEA), Google had given preference to its own comparison shopping services in its 

search results over those of competing comparison shopping services. The Google results were placed at the top 

and promoted in attractive ‘boxes’, whereas competitors’ search results were relegated to simple generic links, 

which were often demoted by algorithms. The General Court essentially upheld that decision, and the Court 

of Justice dismissed the appeal by Google and Alphabet, thereby approving the fine.

Judgment in Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Shopping) of 10 September 2024 (C-48/22 P)

Google launched its advertising platform AdSense in 2003. That platform allows the operators of websites 

to receive revenue by displaying ads linked to users’ queries. In order to use that service, certain website 

publishers had to sign agreements with Google containing clauses restricting or prohibiting the display 

of competing ads. In 2019, after complaints from a number of undertakings, including Microsoft and Expedia, 

the European Commission imposed a fine of EUR 1.49 billion on Google for abuse of a dominant position. 

Further to an action brought against that decision, the General Court held that the Commission had committed 

errors in its assessment of the duration of the clauses as well as of the market covered by them, and that it had 

thus not established the abuse of a dominant position correctly. The General Court therefore annulled the 

decision in its entirety.

Judgment in Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google AdSense for Search) of 18 September 2024 (T-334/19)

64

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

In 2021, the Commission found that the banks Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit Agricole and Credit 

Suisse (now UBS Group) had participated in a cartel in the sector for supra-sovereign bonds, sovereign bonds 

and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’) by exchanging sensitive information and 

coordinating their trading practices. The Commission imposed fines on Bank of America (EUR 12.6 million), 

Credit Suisse (EUR 11.9 million) and Crédit Agricole (EUR 3.9 million), whereas Deutsche Bank escaped a fine 

on account of its cooperation. Ruling on proceedings brought by Crédit Agricole and Credit Suisse, the General 

Court upheld the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintained the amount of the fines imposed 

in 2021.

Judgment in Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission and UBS Group 

and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission of 6 November 2024 (T-386/21 and T-406/21)

In 2018, Vodafone, a UK telecommunications company, informed the European Commission that it intended 

to acquire the telecommunications activities of Liberty Global in Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and 

Romania. The European Commission gave its conditional approval in 2019. Fearing that Vodafone would hold 

a dominant position on certain markets, three German undertakings brought actions before the General Court 

seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision. The General Court dismissed those actions, considering 

that the Commission had properly concluded that the merging parties are not competitors on the markets 

concerned, namely the retail supply of TV signal transmission services in Germany.

Judgments in NetCologne v Commission, Deutsche Telekom v Commission and Tele Columbus v Commission 

of 13 November 2024 (T-58/20, T-64/20 and T-69/20)

Direct taxes fall, in principle, within the competence of the Member States. Nevertheless, such taxes must 

comply with basic EU rules, such as the prohibition on State aid. Thus, the legality of tax rulings issued 

in Member States under which undertakings benefit from special tax treatment is scrutinised by the European 

Union. In 2016, the European Commission took the view that certain companies belonging to the Apple Group 

had, between 1991 and 2014, received tax advantages that constituted State aid granted by Ireland. That aid 

related to the tax treatment of profits generated by Apple’s activities outside the United States. In 2020, 

the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision, holding that the Commission had not sufficiently 

established that those undertakings enjoyed a selective advantage. On appeal, the Court of Justice set aside the 

judgment of the General Court and gave final judgment in the matter, confirming the Commission’s decision. 

Ireland granted Apple aid incompatible with the internal market, having afforded that undertaking tax treatment 

departing from the Irish rules on the calculation of tax payable by non-resident companies. That Member State 

is thus required to recover that aid.

Judgment in Commission v Ireland and Others of 10 September 2024 (C-465/20 P)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

65

Intellectual property

The rules adopted by the European Union to protect intellectual property (copyright) and 

industrial property (trade mark law, protection of designs) improve the competitiveness 

of undertakings by fostering an environment conducive to creativity and innovation.   

Intellectual Property at the General Court

Watch the video on YouTube

In September 2021, the company Escobar Inc. (Puerto Rico, United States) applied to the European Union 

Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to register the word sign Pablo Escobar as an EU trade mark. The Colombian 

national Pablo Escobar, who died in 1993, is presumed to have been a drug lord and a narco-terrorist who 

founded the Medellín cartel (Colombia). EUIPO refused to register the trade mark, finding it to be contrary 

to public policy and to accepted principles of morality. Further to an action brought before it by the company 

Escobar challenging that refusal, the General Court upheld EUIPO’s decision, observing that the name 

Pablo Escobar is associated with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism, and therefore the trade mark would 

be perceived as running counter to fundamental moral standards and the indivisible and universal values 

on which the European Union is founded.

Judgment in Escobar v EUIPO (Pablo Escobar) of 17 April 2024 (T-255/23)

The EU trade mark Big Mac was registered in 1996 for the US chain McDonald’s. In 2017, taking the view that that 

trade mark had not been put to genuine use in respect of certain goods and services, the Irish fast-food chain 

Supermac’s applied to EUIPO for the revocation of the mark. EUIPO upheld Supermac’s application only partially. 

Dissatisfied with that outcome, Supermac’s brought an action before the General Court. The General Court 

further limited the protection conferred on McDonald’s by the Big Mac trade mark. The US chain thus lost that 

trade mark in respect of foods prepared from poultry products and chicken sandwiches, restaurant and  

‘drive-through’ services and the preparation of carry-out foods. The General Court considered that McDonald’s 

failed to prove genuine use of the trade mark Big Mac in the European Union for a continuous period of five 

years in respect of those goods and services.

Judgment in Supermac’s v EUIPO – McDonald’s International Property (BIG MAC) of 5 June 2024 (T-58/23)

66

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Intellectual Property at the General Court

Watch the video on YouTube

On 24 February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Roman Gribov, a Ukrainian 

border guard on Snake Island in the Black Sea, uttered a war cry directed against the Russian vessels: 

‘Русский военный корабль, иди на **й’ (in English: ‘Russian warship, go f**k yourself’). The Administration 

of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine applied to EUIPO to register a trade mark composed of that war 

cry and its English translation as an EU trade mark. EUIPO refused that application. Further to an action brought 

by the Ukrainian Administration, the General Court upheld that refusal. It considered that that phrase, which has 

become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, would not be perceived as an indication 

of commercial origin.

Judgment in Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K 

YOURSELF) of 13 November 2024 (T-82/24)

In 2016, the German company Puma registered with EUIPO a Community design for sports shoes. 

The Netherlands company Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst applied to EUIPO for a declaration of invalidity 

of that design, claiming that, 12 months before the application for registration was filed, the singer Rihanna, 

newly appointed as an artistic director at Puma, had published images on Instagram in which she was wearing 

shoes showing a design with similar features. EUIPO took the view that the design had thus been made public 

before the application for registration, which justified it being declared invalid. The General Court dismissed 

the action brought by Puma against EUIPO’s decision and confirmed that the images taken from the Instagram 

account at issue are sufficient to demonstrate the disclosure of the prior design, because they make it possible 

to identify all the essential features of that design.

Judgment in Puma v EUIPO – Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoe) of 6 March 2024 (T-647/22)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

67

Commercial policy

Commercial policy is an exclusive EU competence, in accordance with which it concludes, 

inter alia, international trade agreements. By speaking with one voice on the global stage, 

the European Union is in a strong position when it comes to international trade. EU action 

taken in this field must, however, observe the European Union’s constitutional framework.

In 2019, EU-Morocco agreements on fisheries and agricultural products were extended to the territory 

of Western Sahara without the explicit consent of the territory’s people. Front Polisario, which is recognised 

by the UN as a privileged representative of the people of Western Sahara, challenged the decisions of the 

Council of the European Union approving those agreements before the General Court, which annulled them. 

Ruling on an appeal against the judgments of the General Court, the Court of Justice took the view that the 

agreements infringed international law, because the people of Western Sahara, who have a right to  

self-determination, had not been properly consulted. Nor could its consent be presumed, because 

the agreements did not provide any specific benefit to the people of Western Sahara, in the form 

of proportionate financial compensation given the exploitation of the natural resources of, and the waters 

adjacent to, Western Sahara.

Judgments in Commission and Council v Front Polisario of 4 October 2024 (Joined Cases C-778/21 P and 

C-798/21 P; Joined Cases C-779/21 P and C-799/21 P)

A French union of farmers challenged before the French authorities the labelling of melons and tomatoes 

grown in Western Sahara. Those goods were exported to the European Union stating Morocco as the country 

of origin, which the Confédération paysanne complained to be misleading and contrary to international law. 

The union called for specific labelling indicating their real origin. The Court of Justice clarified that Western 

Sahara is a territory separate from Morocco within the meaning of EU law. Accordingly, goods from that territory 

must state their real origin, that is to say, Western Sahara, to ensure that transparent information is provided 

and consumers are not misled. However, the Court also held that Member States, such as France, may not 

unilaterally adopt measures banning the import of incorrectly labelled goods. The European Union has exclusive 

competence to take such action within the context of its common commercial policy.

Judgment in Confédération paysanne (Melons and tomatoes from Western Sahara) of 4 October 2024  

(C-399/22)

68

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

 
Migration and asylum

The European Union has adopted a body of rules in order to establish an effective, 

humanitarian and safe European migration policy. The Common European Asylum System 

lays down minimum standards applicable to the treatment of all asylum seekers and to the 

processing of their applications throughout the European Union.

Under the ‘Qualifications’ Directive, persons registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for 

Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are excluded from refugee status in the European Union. 

However, such persons must, in principle, be granted refugee status if that agency’s protection or assistance 

ceases. In the context of a dispute concerning stateless persons of Palestinian origin, a Bulgarian court referred 

questions to the Court of Justice to clarify the criteria by which such assistance may be deemed to have ceased. 

The Court observed that, having regard to the situation prevailing in the Gaza Strip, UNRWA’s inability to provide 

dignified living conditions or minimum security in the area in question constitutes such a cessation.

Judgment in Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite (Refugee status – Stateless persons 

of Palestinian origin) of 13 June 2024 (C-563/22)

The Court of Justice ordered Hungary to pay a lump sum of EUR 200 million and a penalty payment 

of EUR 1 million per day for failure to comply with a judgment given by it in relation to asylum in December 

2020. Hungary failed to comply with its obligations as regards access to the international protection procedure, 

the detention of applicants in transit zones and the removal of illegally staying nationals. By deliberately 

refraining from applying the common EU policy, Hungary seriously undermined the principle of solidarity 

between Member States and the unity of EU law. This unprecedented and extremely serious failure transfers 

an unjustified responsibility to the other Member States for the reception and management of asylum seekers.

Judgment in Commission v Hungary (Reception of applicants for international protection II) of 13 June 2024 

(C-123/22)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

69

Judicial cooperation

The area of freedom, security and justice includes measures to promote judicial cooperation 

between the Member States. This cooperation is based on the mutual recognition of judgments 

and judicial decisions and seeks to harmonise national laws in order to combat transnational 

crime by guaranteeing that the rights of victims, suspects and detainees are protected within 

the European Union.

An Italian court ordered a man, who had killed his ex-partner, to pay compensation to the members of the 

victim’s family. However, as the offender was insolvent, the Italian State paid compensation only to the victim’s 

children and spouse. The victim’s parents, sister and children subsequently brought proceedings before 

an Italian court seeking ‘fair and appropriate’ compensation. The Court of Justice, in response to questions about 

the interpretation of the Directive relating to compensation to crime victims, held that a national scheme that 

automatically excludes certain family members from all compensation solely because of the presence of other 

family members does not guarantee ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ for indirect victims. Such a scheme 

must take into account other considerations, such as the material consequences for those family members of the 

death of the deceased person or the fact that they were dependants of that person.

Judgment in Burdene of 7 November 2024 (C-126/23)

The French police managed to infiltrate the encrypted telecommunications service EncroChat, used worldwide 

on encrypted mobile phones for the purpose of illegal drug trafficking. The German Federal Criminal Police 

Office was able, via a Europol server, to consult the data thus intercepted, which related to EncroChat users 

in Germany. Acting on European Investigation Orders (EIOs) issued by the German public prosecutor’s office, 

a French court authorised the transmission of those data and their use in criminal proceedings in Germany. 

The Regional Court of Berlin then queried the lawfulness of those decisions. The Court of Justice responded 

that a public prosecutor may, under certain conditions, adopt an EIO for the transmission of evidence already 

gathered by another Member State. The conditions applicable to the gathering of evidence in the issuing State 

do not need to have been satisfied in order for the EIO to be issued. It must, however, be possible for compliance 

with the fundamental rights of the persons concerned to be subject to judicial review subsequently.

Judgment in M.N. (EncroChat) of 30 April 2024 (C-670/22)

70

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Common foreign and security policy

An essential tool of EU common foreign and security policy (CFSP), restrictive measures 

or ‘sanctions’ are used as part of an integrated and global policy which includes in particular 

political dialogue. The European Union uses the CFSP, inter alia, to protect its values, 

fundamental interests and security, to prevent conflict and to strengthen international 

security. The purpose of sanctions is to encourage a change of policy or conduct on the part 

of the persons or entities concerned in order to promote the objectives of the CFSP.

In 2008, the European Union created the Eulex Kosovo civil mission to carry out investigations into the crimes 

and the people who disappeared or were killed in Kosovo in 1999. The following year, it established a special 

panel with responsibility for examining complaints of human rights breaches committed by Eulex Kosovo in the 

implementation of its mandate. Following complaints filed by KS and KD, close family members of persons who 

disappeared or were killed in Kosovo, that panel concluded that there had been a breach of several fundamental 

rights. KS and KD subsequently brought proceedings before the General Court seeking compensation for the 

damage allegedly related to the investigations carried out during the mission. The General Court held that 

it manifestly lacked jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Justice clarified the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union in the context 

of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). It held that it had jurisdiction to interpret or assess the 

legality of acts and omissions coming under the CFSP that are not directly related to political or strategic choices 

(such as, for example, acts relating to the recruitment of the personnel of Eulex Kosovo). It observed that such 

a strict interpretation of the exception to its jurisdiction in the field of the CFSP is compatible with the right 

to effective judicial protection, referring in that regard to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. 

The Court therefore set aside in part the order of the General Court and found that the Courts of the European 

Union have jurisdiction to rule on certain acts or conduct referred to by the applicants in their action for 

damages.

Judgment in KS and KD v Council and Others of 10 September 2024 (Joined Cases C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P)

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

71

Again in the field of the CFSP, the General Court confirmed the validity of the prohibition, adopted by the Council 

of the European Union, on providing legal advisory services to the Russian Government and to legal persons, 

entities and bodies established in Russia (see also, in relation to this same judgment, the section entitled 

‘Fundamental rights’ and the chapter entitled ‘Innovations in case-law’).

Judgment in Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council (T-797/22, T-798/22 

and T-828/22)

The Research and Documentation Directorate offers legal professionals, as part of its Collection of 

Summaries, a ‘Yearly selection of major judgments’ and a ‘Monthly Case-Law Digest’ of the Court of Justice 

and the General Court.

72

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Judicial activities

73

 An administration 
at the service of 
justice

3 A. Introduction by the Registrar

 Alfredo Calot 
Escobar

Registrar of the  
Court of Justice

Two decades have passed since ten new Member States joined the 

European Union, marking a historic moment in our institution’s journey. 

It was a day of celebration but also a time of unprecedented challenges. 

Looking back, I can say with pride that we not only overcame these 

challenges but also grew stronger along the way.

Today, we find ourselves amid equally significant transformations within 

our institution. 

The legislative procedure to partially transfer preliminary rulings to the 

General Court has been finalised. Thanks to the tireless efforts of the 

two courts and various services, all the necessary steps have been taken 

to ensure its seamless implementation.

This same spirit of collaboration and adaptability has also driven 

our efforts in another key area, that of digital transformation. 

Throughout the year, we have continued to advance our digital 

capabilities, actively developing AI-driven projects, while aligning these 

initiatives with the requirements of the AI Act, which came into force this 

year. Recognising that human input remains essential for the effective 

deployment of AI tools, we launched a comprehensive, large-scale 

AI training program. Furthermore, our legal translation services have 

taken the lead in reimagining workflows in a more advanced digital 

landscape, setting a benchmark for other services to follow.

As we strive to modernise and innovate, ensuring the security and 

resilience of our digital infrastructure has become equally vital. 

This year, the Cybersecurity Regulation came into force, introducing 

significant obligations for our institution, within a stringent timeline.

Even as we embrace innovation, our institution’s timeless ideals 

continue to steer our efforts. At the core of our success lies our greatest 

asset: a team of over 2,000 dedicated individuals from across the 

continent, working harmoniously every day to deliver justice. The true 

value of this collective effort lies in its diversity; by combining a wide 

range of perspectives, cultures, experiences, and talents, it strengthens 

our ability to fulfil our mission.

76

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

To retain and attract the best talent from all Member States, initiatives aimed at ensuring the attractiveness 

of our host country as a place to work have continued throughout the year. For the first time, we saw political 

recognition of the unique challenges faced by staff in Luxembourg compared to their colleagues in Brussels. 

In a far from straightforward procedure, the budgetary authorities granted our request for temporary housing 

allowance for colleagues in lower pay grades - a vital first step towards addressing this inequality.

Our commitment to diversity extends beyond our staff. In 2024, we took new initiatives, together with the 

European Judicial Training Network, to optimise the geographical balance of national justice professionals 

participating in the long-term trainings at the Court. These efforts have delivered tangible results, 

with candidates from three new Member States submitting their applications for the first time in the program’s 

nearly twenty-year history.

This also demonstrates our longstanding commitment to strengthening the dialogue with national courts, 

a principle we have actively pursued throughout the year. Another significant step in advancing judicial dialogue 

has been taken by the Judicial Network of the European Union: the correspondents’ meeting was, for the first 

time, hosted outside the walls of our institution and co-organised by the Belgian Conseil d’État. This brought 

a fresh perspective to the Network, reinforcing the fundamental idea that judicial dialogue, by its very essence, 

transcends institutional boundaries.

Alongside these external milestones, we have turned our focus inwards, reaffirming our commitment to the 

highest ethical standards that have always been an integral part of our identity. This year we consolidated 

these standards into a Code of Conduct applicable to all staff, aligning our principles with the high standards 

previously set for the Members.

Just as we met the challenges of enlargement twenty years ago with determination and a shared sense 

of purpose, I am confident that twenty years from now, we will look back on today’s transformations with equal 

pride. The challenges we face today allow us to embrace the forward-thinking developments that will chart our 

institution’s path into the future, while honouring the rich traditions that have shaped its past.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

77

 
 B. Key events of the year

 Partial transfer of jurisdiction to give preliminary 
rulings

With the aim of enabling the EU judicature to deliver high-quality justice within reasonable timeframes 

and to strike the best balance between the workload of the Court of Justice and that of the General Court, 

important amendments to the Statute and to the Rules of Procedure entered into force on 1 September 2024. 

The amendments to the Statute, proposed by the Court of Justice, were adopted by the European Parliament 

and by the Council of the European Union; the amendments to the Rules of Procedure were adopted by the 

Court of Justice and by the General Court, after approval had been given by the Council. Those amendments 

implement the partial transfer of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings to the General Court and modernise 

the procedures before the two courts.

78

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

Amendments to the Statute and their implementation

The amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union allow for the partial 

transfer of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings to the General Court with effect from 1 October 2024. 

The possibility to do so has existed since the Treaty of Nice signed in 2001 and returned to the agenda in the 

context of the 2015 reform of the judicial architecture of the European Union, in particular the doubling of the 

number of Judges of the General Court, which was completed in 2022.

The General Court exercises its jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for a preliminary ruling in clearly 

identifiable specific areas, which raise few questions of principle, and in relation to which there is a significant 

foundation of established case-law of the Court of the Justice to guide the General Court in the exercise of this 

new jurisdiction. Furthermore, the requests for a preliminary ruling in question should give rise to a sufficiently 

high number of references, such that their transfer to the General Court will lighten the workload of the Court 

of Justice in real terms.

The specific areas concerned are the common system of VAT, excise duties, the Customs Code, the tariff 

classification of goods, compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding or of delay 

or cancellation of transport services, and the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading.

The division of competences between the Court of Justice and the General Court

Watch the video on YouTube

The amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice lay down, first of all, the detailed rules 

for the initial processing of requests for a preliminary ruling in order to determine which court has jurisdiction 

to deal with them. Next, they introduce the provisions which are necessary to ensure that the requests that 

the General Court refers to the Court of Justice on the ground that they require a decision of principle likely 

to affect the unity or consistency of EU law are dealt with swiftly. Lastly, they lay down detailed rules for the 

online publication, within a reasonable time after the case is closed, of the written observations submitted 

in references for a preliminary ruling by the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute.

The amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the General Court lay down the procedures under which 

requests for a preliminary ruling transmitted to the General Court are dealt with by that court. In order 

to provide national courts and tribunals, as well as the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute, 

the same safeguards as are applied by the Court of Justice, the General Court has reproduced, in essence, 

the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that are applicable to requests for a preliminary 

ruling, including those relating to the publication of the pleadings and written observations lodged by the 

interested parties.

Other far-reaching amendments concern the structure and organisation of the General Court. They provide 

for the creation of an Intermediate Chamber of nine Judges, presided over by the Vice-President of the General 

Court. Requests for a preliminary ruling will be assigned to Chambers sitting with five Judges that have special 

responsibility for hearing and determining such cases, but may also be referred to another formation for the 

matter to be heard and determined, depending on the importance of the questions referred.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

79

 
The Judges called upon to perform the duties of an Advocate General in preliminary ruling cases (as well as those 

called upon to replace such Judges if they are prevented from acting) are elected by the General Court and assist 

the competent court formation in all preliminary ruling cases, mirroring the participation of Advocates General 

in proceedings before the Court of Justice.

The General Court has, furthermore, clarified the rules on the protection of personal data and on the methods 

of lodging and service of procedural documents in the context of requests for a preliminary ruling.

The scale of the amendments provided a timely opportunity for a recast of the Practice rules for the 

implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Other amendments to the Rules of Procedure

Further amendments seek to improve, simplify and modernise how cases are dealt with by the Court of Justice 

and the General Court, in the light of the experience gained during the health crisis. The most significant for 

the Court of Justice is the possibility – which is already available to the General Court – for the representatives 

of the parties to the proceedings or of the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute to participate 

in a hearing by videoconference, in compliance with the legal and technical requirements laid down in the 

Practice Directions to Parties. Furthermore, the General Court reviewed a series of provisions applicable to direct 

actions, including those relating to the confidential treatment of procedural documents, the modification of the 

application in the course of proceedings and the formal rules to be observed in connection with the lodging 

of procedural documents.

As regards, lastly, the broadcasting of hearings before the Court of Justice, which contributes to making justice 

more transparent and more accessible, a new provision clarifies the rules applicable to the broadcasting 

of hearings, the delivery of judgments and the reading of Opinions of the Advocates General. The General Court 

has, in turn, introduced essentially the same provisions.

Giulia Predonzani, attaché to the Registrar of the General Court

‘For running enthusiasts, the reform of the Statute may be comparable to the marathon in 

which every runner wants to take part one day … and which they have been thinking about 

for over twenty years. Several stages have to be covered in order to reach the finish line. 

Completing the reform of the judicial architecture of the Court of Justice of the European Union 

has given the General Court the resources and the structure to enable it to deal with requests 

for a preliminary ruling with the necessary speed. But we couldn’t stop there.

To run this marathon, the General Court also had to be kitted out with a suitable regulatory 

and practical framework. First of all, to take into account the involvement in preliminary 

ruling proceedings of national courts and tribunals and the interested parties referred to 

in Article 23 of the Statute, the General Court not only revised its Rules of Procedure and 

the Practice rules for their implementation, but also its decision on the use of the e-Curia 

application and all the “soft law” documentation – aide-mémoires, forms, information guides 

80

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

(redaction of data in judicial proceedings, model applications). Next, the General Court had 

to adopt decisions concerning the composition and the functioning of its Chambers and 

various formations, including the new Intermediate Chamber, and elect Advocates General 

to deal with requests for a preliminary ruling. Lastly, in order to establish new workflows, 

the General Court had to coordinate with its other “marathon” partners, in particular the 

Directorate-General for Multilingualism, the Directorate for Information Technology and the 

Research and Documentation Directorate. One key stage was the creation of a “one-stop 

shop”: an application that centralises the analysis of requests for a preliminary ruling that may 

be transmitted to the General Court. The productive dialogue with the Registry of the Court of 

Justice, a genuine institutional partner, was a valuable constant throughout the “training”.

Preparation, anticipation of needs, high-intensity and high-endurance work, all to an ambitious 

timetable. In October 2024, the staff at the General Court and its registry were ready and in the 

“starting blocks” to run this long-awaited marathon! In late 2024, 23 case files passed through 

the “one-stop shop” and 19 cases were ultimately transferred to the General Court. The race 

continues … and it’s going well!’

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

81

 The 20th anniversary of the 2004 enlargement

2O

YEARS

On 1 May 2004, 10 new Member States joined the European Union: 

the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, 

Slovenia and Slovakia. It was the largest enlargement of the EU to date, in terms 

both of the people involved and the number of countries.

Impact of the 2004 enlargement on the functioning 

of the courts

Of all the successive enlargements, the 2004 enlargement was the largest; 

it involved the integration, in one fell swoop, of 10 new judges appointed both 

to the Court of Justice and to the General Court.

The impact on the rules governing language arrangements 

at the Court of Justice of the European Union was significant. The number 

of official languages increased from 12 to 21, which led to an exponential 

increase in the number of language combinations, rising from 110 to 420.

A considerable volume of structural work was required to establish the 

new chambers and new language units, both in terms of real estate and 

recruitment, with the arrival of several hundred new colleagues in the space 

of one year.

The contribution by the Member States which acceded to the European Union 

in 2004 has proved to be substantial: in 20 years, almost 1 300 references for 

a preliminary ruling have been submitted by the courts of the 10 acceding 

Member States.

‘A new constitutional moment for Europe’

To celebrate this historic event, on 3 May 2024 the Court of Justice 

hosted a conference entitled ’20 years since the accession of 10 States 

to the European Union: A new constitutional moment for Europe’, 

which brought together judges and representatives from all EU Member States, 

to provide a forum for joint consideration of the Court’s contribution to the 

advancement of the European project and the contribution made by those 

10 Member States to the common legal order.

82

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

The conference hosted on 3 May, the documents relating to which are published on the Court’s website, 

explored a number of topics, including:

• 

the accession process for new Member States after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which necessitated 

a fundamental shift in the legislation, mindsets and cultures of the peoples concerned;

• 

common European values and the contribution of the 2004 enlargement to the evolution of the 

European Union as a ‘Union of values’; and

• 

the convergence between the economies of the new Member States and the remainder of the EU.

The speakers’ presentations and the discussions with participants served in particular as a reminder that 

the European Union is unique, in that it is built upon shared values – with democracy and the rule of law 

uppermost – which it and its Member States must continue to defend.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

83

 
Statement of Ineta Ziemele, Judge at the Court of Justice, chair of the 

working group for the organisation of the event

‘The main purpose of the conference marking the 20 years since the largest single enlargement 

of the European Union was to take stock of the impact and change that this enlargement has 

brought to the Union. It was considered the right moment to reflect and exchange experiences 

and lessons learned on how the Union has evolved and changed over the last 20 years 

following such a historical moment. 

The EU Courts, in preparing the conference, proposed to see the 2004 enlargement as a 

constitutional moment – a paradigm shift – that united Eastern and Western Europe into a 

common constitutional project. The European Union spread its values and principles to parts 

of Europe with particularly complex histories, while the ten new Member States entered the 

EU with a strong determination and hope for freedom, justice and prosperity. Accession to the 

EU was a complex process, by no means evident, and the aspiring States put in an incredible 

amount of work and effort to meet the accession criteria (known as the Copenhagen criteria) 

first established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. 

That day 20 years ago marked a fundamental change also for the Union in all its areas of 

competence. What exactly that change would be was not always easy to foresee, but it 

was evident that there was more potential for growth within its internal market, there was 

fascinating cultural, historical and linguistic diversity that opened up and accompanied future 

political and legal developments within the Union. The enlarged European Union became an 

even more important global actor. 

Another unique feature of the conference was the fact that the EU Courts invited speakers 

from each State concerned who had been directly involved with the accession process or had 

been leading personalities with important roles in so far as membership of the State or the 

Union itself was concerned. The conference brought inter-disciplinarity into the reflections 

proposed by the EU Courts on this occasion. 

A magnificent tour d’horizon on a particularly complex and often brutal history of these States 

by Professor Norman Davies concluded the conference. This was a necessary reminder that 

the values of the European Union cannot be taken for granted and that their sustainability 

and development require serious work from everyone in the Union. As we pondered the 

lessons, choir of the EU Courts sang songs in ten languages before concluding with Beethoven’s 

‘Ode to Joy’ which continues to express the very ideal of the European Union – the human race 

becoming brothers.’

84

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

 A stronger ethical framework for staff at 
the Court of Justice of the European Union

Due to the very nature of its mission, the Court of Justice of the 

European Union has always placed the highest demands on itself 

when it comes to independence, impartiality and integrity. 

Satisfying those demands, all of which are values upon which the 

Institution’s identity is based, is essential to guaranteeing not only 

confidence in European justice but also its own legitimacy. It is 

for this reason that the Court must ensure that it has an internal 

legal framework which reflects the highest ethical standards and, 

thereby, meets the expectations of excellence borne by a judicial 

institution.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has therefore always 

upheld rigorous ethical standards. The Members of the Institution 

(Judges, Advocates General and Registrars) and its entire staff are 

subject to such standards, even after they have left the Court.

Against a background of increasingly higher expectations 

of exemplary conduct on the part of the European civil service, 

the Court has chosen to continue modernising its internal 

arrangements in matters of ethics. This approach, launched back 

in 2021 with the amendment of the Code of Conduct for Members 

and former Members, is now being pursued with the adoption 

of a code of conduct for staff.

Accordingly, the rules already contained in the Staff Regulations 

of Officials of the European Union and in the Conditions 

of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), as well as in a number 

of internal provisions, have been consolidated, supplemented 

and adjusted to judicial requirements to produce a single 

code of conduct for staff which, following its adoption by the 

Administrative Committee, entered into force on 1 March 2024.

Based on ethical rules drawn from a variety of existing sources, 

this code of conduct provides, in a single text, easy and clear 

access for all members of staff subject to those rules. With a view 

to providing transparency and legal certainty, the purpose of the 

code is to interpret those obligations, taking into account the 

specific aspects of the Court’s judicial role, and to clarify how they 

will be implemented. It follows an ethical approach, based on the 

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

85

values governing the Institution’s actions, which are reflected 

in exemplary standards of conduct. The code also includes 

specific rules for members of the Court’s senior management, 

in the light of their particular responsibilities, and for legal 

secretaries, given the position they hold vis-à-vis the Members 

of the Court of Justice and of the General Court and their direct 

involvement in judicial work. Those rules make clear that the duty 

of exemplary conduct is proportionate to the responsibilities 

assumed and set out in detail specific obligations in relation 

to avoiding conflicts of interest and pursuing external activities, 

even after ceasing to hold office.

86

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

87

 C. Public relations

16 319 visitors, including

3 985 legal professionals

Virtual visitors: 7%

2 493 

 visitors on the Open Day

Remote visits – an educational programme

The aim of this remote educational programme is to 

enable secondary school students aged between 15 and 

18 to learn about the work of the European Union’s 

judicial institutions from their classroom, without having 

to travel to Luxembourg. The programme is intended to 

raise awareness amongst the young students and their 

teachers about democratic values and current legal issues, 

and to explain to them the impact of the Court’s case-law 

on the daily lives of European citizens. In 2024, almost 

1 300 students had the opportunity to visit the Court as 

part of this programme.

The Communications Directorate’s press officers, who are lawyers by training, have the task of making judgments, 

orders and legal opinions, as well as ongoing cases, easier to understand for journalists and correspondents in 

all the Member States. They draft press releases in real time to inform journalists and legal practitioners about 

the decisions of the Court of Justice and the General Court. They send out regular newsletters covering important 

procedural and institutional events to those who have requested them from the Court’s press office, as well as 

‘info-rapid’ bulletins on cases for which there are no press releases. In addition, they deal with emails and calls 

from citizens.

2 509 press releases

610 newsletters 

516 ‘info-rapid’ bulletins

13 091 responses to requests for information from 
citizens (telephone calls and emails)

88

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

 
The Court maintains an active presence on social media via its two X accounts (one in French, the other in English), LinkedIn and 

Mastodon. The number of followers is constantly increasing, demonstrating the public’s interest in and engagement with the activity 

of the Court. The Court also has a YouTube channel providing access in the 24 official languages to a variety of audio-visual content, 

including videos aimed at the general public to explain how the case-law of the Court affects the daily lives of citizens.

163 000 f ollowers on X  +2% from 2023

297 346  LinkedIn followers 

+26%  from2023

4 500  Mastodon followers

90 000 
YouTube    +137% from 2023

 followers and 600 000  views on

In 2024, the Court published a new video: 

The division of competences between the Court of Justice and the General Court

Watch the video on YouTube

Broadcasting of hearings

In order to facilitate access to its judicial activity, the Court offers a system for broadcasting hearings. 

The delivery of judgments and the reading of opinions of the Advocates General are broadcast live on the 

website, at the time indicated in the judicial calendar. Hearings of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice 

involving oral pleadings are also broadcast with a delay.

The recordings remain available for one month.

Before hearings are broadcast, an explanatory briefing on the case is provided in the languages of the hearing 

and broadcast on the Court’s website and on social media. In 2024, a total of 29 briefings were broadcast.

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An administration at the service of justice

89

 An environmentally 
friendly institution

4For many years, the Court has been committed to a strong environmental 

policy targeting the highest standards of sustainable development and respect 

for natural resources. That commitment has been evident since 2016 through 

its EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) registration. That certification, 

which is regulated by the European Union, is granted to organisations that satisfy 

strict conditions relating to their environmental policies, their efforts in connection 

with the protection of the environment and their sustainable working methods.

In 2023, the Court achieved very satisfactory results in relation to all its 

environmental indicators, and the year can now be regarded as the new baseline 

for environmental performance following the health crisis in 2020 to 2022.

The environmental indicators for water, waste, paper, heating and electricity match those for 2023. Changes are 

quantified by reference to 2015, the reference year for the EMAS scheme.

More specifically, in terms of energy consumption, as the energy-saving 

measures adopted in connection with the war in Ukraine were extended, the Court 

again recorded a significant reduction in its energy consumption for electricity 

and heating. In addition, the Court also met its ambitious targets for paper 

consumption. In 2023, the use of office paper (excluding outsourced publications) 

fell by 55.2% as compared with its pre-pandemic level in 2019, marking a persistent 

trend thanks to changes in behaviour and the continued digitisation of processes 

and documents.

Despite the resumption of all the Court’s activities, including visits by external 

parties, CO2 emission levels have been stabilised, thanks not only to a variety 
of projects but also to the awareness and active commitment of staff in relation 

to the EMAS policy.

Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is the unit of 

measurement of occupational activity, 

independent of the disparities in the number 

of hours worked each week by staff members 

resulting from their different working 

arrangements.

92

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An environmentally friendly institution

Improvement in waste sorting 
and reduction of single-use 
plastics

Participation in the Vel’oH self-service 
bicycle system and support for travel 
by bicycle and train for cross-border 
workers. Installation of charging points 
for electric vehicles

Reduction in paper 
consumption
- 63% kg/FTE

Reduction in water 
consumption
- 20% m3/FTE

Reduction in ‘Oﬃces and 
Catering’ waste 
- 43.2% kg/FTE

Improvement of the 
heating, ventilation, 
air-conditioning and 
lighting systems

Reduction in electricity 
consumption 
- 28.7% kWh/FTE

Reduction in energy 
consumption for heating
- 33.5%  kWh/FTE

CO2

Reduction in carbon 
emissions 
- 30.2% kg CO2/FTE

3 466 m2 
of solar panels
producing
380 758 kWh
equivalent to the 
annual electricity
needs of 69 families

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / An environmentally friendly institution

93

5

 Looking ahead

The first challenge of 2025 will be the successful completion of the implementation of the partial 

transfer of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings to the General Court, applicable since 

1 October 2024, and the final stage of the reform of the judicial system of the European Union. 

The Court of Justice will ensure that all its services provide effective and high-quality support 

to the General Court to enable it to deal with this litigation in the best possible circumstances.

In response to the expected increase in the number of cases over the short and medium term, 

the Court will also push ahead with its programme of digitalising judicial and administrative 

processes to make its administration more efficient and more effective. It will continue to make 

use of the possibilities offered by innovative technologies, whilst heeding the caution required 

by the judicial nature of its mission and with, as its guiding principle, the development of the 

expertise and skills of its partners.

The year will, however, also be shaped by new projects aimed at citizens, continuing the 

Institution’s policy of transparency and access to information. To increase the transparency of its 

judicial and administrative activities, the Court will diversify and re-design its communication 

channels. For example, the Institution is set to overhaul its website to meet the needs of legal 

professionals and the media as well as those of the general public. Furthermore, so that it is easier 

for all citizens, including the young generations, to understand how it operates and the decisions 

it makes, the Court will launch an online audio-visual platform called ‘Curia web TV’, which will 

broadcast programmes explaining its activities.

In 2025, the European Union will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the accession of Austria, 

Finland and Sweden. The Court will commemorate this fourth enlargement of the European 

Union, which, almost 10 years after the accession of Spain and Portugal and following the approval 

by referendum in the three new States concerned, brought the population of the European 

Union to 370 million citizens and extended its geographical area significantly, both to the 

north and towards the centre of Europe. The context of the accession of those three countries, 

its significance and its implications for each of them will be highlighted, with the participation 

of prominent representatives from the States being celebrated.

Lastly, the Court will continue the intensive dialogue, in which it has been engaged for over 

70 years, with national courts and tribunals to ensure that European law is applied consistently 

and uniformly.

That dialogue will be conducted, in particular within the framework of the Judicial Network of the 

European Union, with constitutional and supreme courts, as well as under the umbrella of the 

Meeting of National Judges organised every year at the Court.

The Court will also be the joint organiser of the ‘EUnited in diversity’ conference in Sofia 

in September 2025. Following on from the first conference held in Riga in 2021 and the 2023 

conference in The Hague, this third conference will mark the continuation of this now established 

biennial meeting and its theme will be ‘The role of constitutional justice in the common legal order 

of the European Union’.

96

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Looking ahead

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Looking ahead

97

6

 Stay connected!

Access the case-law search portal of the Court of 

Justice and the General Court via the Curia website:

curia.europa.eu

Keep up with the latest case-law and institutional 

news by:

consulting press releases:  

curia.europa.eu/jcms/PressRelease

subscribing to the Court’s RSS feed: 

curia.europa.eu/jcms/RSS

following the Court’s X account:  

CourUEPresse ou EuCourtPress

following the Court’s Mastodon account:

curia.social-network.europa.eu/@Curia/

following the Court’s account on LinkedIn: 

linkedin.com/company/european-court-of-justice

downloading the CVRIA app for smartphones and tablets

consulting the European Court Reports:

curia.europa.eu/jcms/EuropeanCourtReports

To learn more about the activity of the Institution:

consult the webpage on the Annual Report:  

curia.europa.eu/jcms/AnnualReport

watch the videos on YouTube: 

youtube.com/@CourtofJusticeEU

100

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Stay connected!

Access the documents of the Institution:

historical archives: 

curia.europa.eu/jcms/archive

administrative documents: 

curia.europa.eu/jcms/documents

Visit the seat of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Institution offers visit programmes tailored to the interests of each group (attending a hearing, guided 

tours of the building or of the works of art, study visit, remote visit):  

curia.europa.eu/jcms/visits

For any information about the Institution:

Write to us using the contact form:

curia.europa.eu/jcms/contact

Annual Report 2024 - The Year in Review / Stay connected!

101

Court of Justice of the European Union

L-2925 Luxembourg 

TEL. +352 4303-1 

curia.europa.eu

Text completed in February 2025 / Figures correct as at 31.12.2024

Layout: Court of Justice of the European Union / Communications Directorate / Publications and Electronic Media 

Unit, 2025

Neither the Court of Justice of the European Union nor any person acting on behalf of the Institution may be held 

responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025

© European Union, 2025

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Photos / illustrations:

All images © European Union, unless otherwise stated. Pages 9, 12, 13, 83: © shutterstock.com; Page 11: Lietuvos 

nacionalinis muziejus / Photo: © Gediminas Trečiokas; pages 94 - 95 Photo: Gediminas Karbauskis 

Any use or reproduction of photos or other material of which the European Union is not the copyright holder 

is prohibited without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2025

Print 

ISBN 978-92-829-4769-2 

ISSN 2467-1444  

doi:10.2862/8494301 

QD-01-24-003-EN-C

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-829-4768-5 

ISSN 2467-1673  

doi:10.2862/7490365 

QD-01-24-003-EN-N

HTML 

ISBN 978-92-829-4767-8 

ISSN 2467-1673  

doi:10.2862/2787350 

QD-01-24-003-EN-Q

W

E

I

V

E

R

N

I

R

A

E

Y

E

H

T

4

2

0

2

T

R

O

P

E

R

L

A

U

N

N

A

Communications Directorate 

Publications and Electronic Media Unit