March 2026 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

This month starts with the publication, on Thursday 5 March, of Advocate General R. Norkus’s opinion in case C-716/24, Ponner, on the interpretation of the EAPO Regulation (Regulation 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure), upon request fom the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany). A hearing took place last December – see here. N. Jääskinen is the reporting judge in a chamber of five judges.

One week later, on Thursday 12 March, the Court will hand down the judgment in case C-516/24, Winderwill. The single question referred to the Court by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) concerns the interpretation of the Maintenance Regulation. A hearing took place on June 2025 – see here. Advocate general R. Norkus delivered his opinion last October, proposing the Court to answer that

an application for legal aid, to which the application to vary in a matter relating to maintenance obligations – which is intended to be formally submitted in the event that legal aid is granted – is attached only in draft form, is not an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 9(a) of [the Maintenance Regulation].

The judgment corresponds to a chamber composed of five judges, with O. Spineanu-Matei reporting.

On March 18th, the Court will host a hearing in case C-300/25, Duftošek. In its request for a preliminary ruling, the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) is asking the Court to rule for the first time on Regulation 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes:

Do proceedings for the dissolution and liquidation of joint ownership interests in an immoveable property, acquired by the spouses as joint ownership interests as a result of an agreed separate property regime, constitute proceedings on a matrimonial property regime within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes?

The case concerns a dispute about the dissolution and liquidation of joint ownership interests in immovable property, where each of the parties is, as claimed by the applicant, the owner of an ideal half of a complex of immovable properties that form part of a residential building in the French Republic. The properties at stake were acquired by the applicant and the defendant as joint ownership interests during the marriage (now dissolved) under the arrangement of a separate property regime. The decision about the international jurisdiction of the courts depends on which regulation applies to proceedings on the dissolution and liquidation of joint ownership interests in property, if that property was acquired in circunstances like the ones in the case at hand.

The request has been assigned to a chamber of five judges – O. Spineanu-Matei acting as reporting judge- , with the support of an opinion by Advocate general J. Richard de la Tour.

On Thursday 19 March, the Court will announce its decision on case C-43/25, SML Maschinen, a request for a preliminary ruling on regulation 1346/2000 and the Rome I regulation. The main proceeding concerns two companies, SML (established in Austria), and MAPLAN (established in Germany) belonging to the same group. Insolvency proceedings were opened against MAPLAN on 1 October 2016. Following the opening, SML filed a claim with the Landgericht Schwerin (Regional Court of Schwerin, Germany) requesting that the claims arising from two loans she had granted to MAPLAN be included in the liabilities of the bankruptcy, as MAPLAN has not repaid the entirety of these loans. It also claimed a preferential right over the claims assigned. The insolvency administrator contested these claims and filed a counterclaim seeking, by way of an avoidance action, the return of the principal and interest that MAPLAN had paid to SML in respect of the two loans, plus interest.

The Landgericht (Regional Court) dismissed SML’s action and upheld the counterclaim. The applicant’s appeal was unsuccessful. By the appeal on a point of law which the appeal court granted leave to be brought, the applicant is pursuing in full the forms of order originally sought. The Bundesgerichtshof, which is the referring court, has doubts regarding the law applicable to the avoidance action brought by the insolvency administrator. In particular, it considers that the solution to this action requires clarification of the interpretation of Article 13 of regulation 1346/2000:

1. Is Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (‘EU Insolvency Regulation, old version’) to be interpreted as meaning that the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors can rely on the effects of that provision as against a recovery demand by the liquidator even if the recovery demand is intended to enforce the lower ranking laid down in the applicable law of the State of the opening of proceedings (point (i) of the second phrase of Article 4(2) of the EU Insolvency Regulation, old version)?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 13 of the EU Insolvency Regulation, old version, to be interpreted as meaning that that provision also applies to grounds for avoidance intended to treat loans granted by a shareholder of a company limited by shares prior to the insolvency in order to secure the financial resources of the company largely in the same way as liable equity capital?

3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 13 of the EU Insolvency Regulation, old version, to be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to a loan granted by a shareholder of a company limited by shares to the company is determined in accordance with company law?

4. If Question 3 is answered in the negative: Is Article 9(1) 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 applicable to the relevant law to be determined in accordance with Article 13 of the EU Insolvency Regulation, old version, and to be interpreted as meaning that overriding mandatory provisions may also be contained in rules of contract law laid down in national insolvency provisions – such as those regarding the lower ranking of shareholder loans and the legal consequences of their lower ranking?

The decision will be handed down by a chamber of three judges, with K. Jürimäe reporting. No opinion was considered necessary.

Outside the core domain of PIL, two cases may also be of interest for the readers of this blog. The first one is C-43/24, Shipov, to which Marco Pasqua referred here. A hearing took place last year in May. For the record, the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court, Bulgaria) is asking, among others, whether

the obligation of the Member States of the European Union to recognise a person’s civil status as established in another Member State under the law of that State, which is recognised in the case-law of the European Court of Justice (in the judgments in Cases C 673/16 1 and C 490/20 2 in relation to the application of Directive 2004/38/EC 3 and Article 21(1) TFEU9, also apply in relation to gender as an essential element of the civil status entry, and does a change of gender, established in another Member State, on the part of a person who also has Bulgarian nationality, require that fact to be recorded in the corresponding registers of the Republic of Bulgaria?

In his opinion delivered on 4 September 2025, Advocate general J. Richard de la Tour had proposed the Court to rule that EU law precludes national legislation which does not allow the legal recognition of gender identity for its nationals, including in the absence of gender reassignment surgery, or permit changes to their name or personal identification number to be legally recognised. It also precludes national legislation that does not allow those changes to be entered in their birth certificate, since a change to the statements contained in their identity documents depends on such an entry. The judgment, by a chamber of five judges with K. Jürimäe reporting, will be published on Thursday 12.

The second request, C-530/24, Tipico, has been sent to the Court by the Bundesgerichtshof in the context of a dispute between an individual having made use of the services provided on line by defendant, Tipico Co. Ltd., a company established in Malta which offers online sports betting services in Germany. Under German law, prior authorisation in the form of a licence was required for the provision of such services. During the period relevant to the main proceedings, Tipico was operating without authorisation.

The request raises the question whether the principle established in the Court’s case law, according to which EU law precludes a Member State from imposing penalties on providers of gambling services operating without authorisation where it has been established that the procedure for granting such authorisations is incompatible with EU law, implies that EU law precludes as well the activity carried out by such providers is considered to be non-compliant with national legislation and, consequently, that contracts concluded between that provider and players are rendered void and that a player is reimbursed.

The opinion by Advocate general N. Emiliou is expected on 19 March.