January 2026 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

After the Christmas break, the Court resumes its normal rhythm of hearings and publication of judgments and opinions until the “semaine blanche” in February.

The judgment of the first chamber (F. Biltgen reporting, the other judges being T. von Danwitz, I. Ziemele, S. Gervasoni and N. Fenger) in case C-77/24, Wunner, is scheduled for Thursday 15 January. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) has referred two questions on the interpretation of Regulation No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II):

1. Must Article 1(2)(d) of the Rome II Regulation be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to claims for damages against an officer of a company which a creditor of the company bases on tortious liability for infringement of protective provisions (such as provisions of legislation on games of chance) by that officer?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Must Article 4(1) of the abovementioned regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an action for damages based on tortious liability in respect of gaming losses suffered which is brought against an officer of a company offering online games of chance in Austria without a licence, the place where the damage occurred is determined by

(a) the place from which the player effects credit transfers from his or her bank account to the player account maintained by the company,

(b) the place where the company maintains the player account in which deposits from the player, winnings, losses and bonuses are entered,

(c) the place from which the player places bets via that player account which ultimately result in a loss,

(d) the player’s place of residence as the location of his or her claim to payment of the credit balance in his or her player account,

(e) the location of the player’s main assets?

Advocate General N. Emilou delivered his opinion last June 12, 2025. He proposes the Court of Justice answers as follows:

(1) Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion concerning ‘non-contractual obligations arising out of the law of companies’ laid down in that provision does not cover an alleged ‘non-contractual obligation’ of a company director arising out of the infringement of a duty or prohibition imposed by the law independently of his or her appointment, such as the prohibition on anyone to offer games of chance in a given Member State without a licence granted by the authorities of that State.

(2) Article 4(1) of Regulation No 864/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer alleges to have sustained gambling losses as a result of participating, from the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident, in the online games of chance offered to him or her by a provider established in another Member State without a licence granted by the authorities of the first State, the ‘damage’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that regulation occurred in that first State, as the country from which the bets were placed.

On the same day, a hearing is taking place in case C-176/25, Steizer. The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) asks, in essence, whether the Rome I and Rome II Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings for infringement by a third party of intellectual property rights, the question of the formal validity of the contract of assignment between the holder of the rights and the assignor of those rights is governed by the law applicable to the contract under the rules laid down in the Rome I Regulation or by the law of the country for which protection of those rights is claimed under Article 8(1) of the Rome II Regulation.

In the case at hand, a natural person (BT) had,  for the purposes of its online business in Germany, photographs of its goods taken by a photographer in Poland on the basis of a verbal agreement that also included the transfer of exclusive rights of use to the photographs. Another natural person (IU) used the photographs for the purposes of his own online business in Germany without BT’s consent. BT then brought an action against IU in Germany, seeking, inter alia, an injunction against the unauthorised use of the photographs.  IU argues that the transfer agreement between BT and the photographer is governed by Polish law under the Rome I Regulation, and that it is invalid because it should have been concluded in writing in accordance with that law.

The questions read:

1. Is Article 8(1) of the Rome II Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the law of the State for which protection is claimed also applies to the question of the (formal) validity of the assignment of exclusive rights to use photographs from the author to the assignee?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is the question of the (formal) validity of the assignment of exclusive rights to use photographs from the author to the assignee governed by the lex loci contractus and, consequently, are Articles 4 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘the Rome I Regulation’) applicable?since the question of the formal validity of the transfer agreement is incidental to the action for infringement of its intellectual property rights, that question should be governed by the law applicable to that non-contractual action, namely the law of the country for which protection is claimed (lex loci protectionis) under Article 8(1) of the Rome II Regulation. In this case, that would be German law; since German law does not require the assignment of rights to be in writing, the assignment agreement between BT and the photographer would be valid in form.

The preliminary ruling will be given by a chamber of five judges (C. Lycourgos, S. Rodin, Piçarra, N. Fenger, and O. Spineanu-Mattei reporting), supported by advocate general N. Emiliou’s opinion.

Finally, the opinion of advocate general M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona in case C-98/24, Koda, on which I reported last November, will be published on Thursday 29 January. The questions referred by the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (District Court for Prague 1, Czech Republic) concern Regulation No 650/2012 on matters of succession. Judging from the hearing, admissibility under article 267 TFEU will be dealt with in the first place.