May 2026 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

In May, the Court of Justice will deliver only one decision, on the interpretation of the European Account Preservation Order Regulation. It will also hold a hearing in a case related to the Rome II Regulation.

The hearing will take place on Wednesday 13th; it concerns case C-345/25, Gritxa, a request for a preliminary ruling against the backdrop of civil law proceedings between the State of Libya as the applicant, and several defendants: (a) the Court appointed attorneys ad litem representing the estate of BC, (b) the agent for the mother of the deceased as one of his presumed heirs, and (c) Capital Resources Limited (C50047), a company established under the laws of Malta. The questions submitted by the Qorti tal-Appell (Malta) focus on the interpretation of several provisions  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):

‘Does the notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 1 of Regulation No 864/2007 cover a claim such as that submitted by the State of Libya pursuant to the foregoing laws in order to recover assets of the deceased BC that are present in Malta?

Does the exception relating to administrative matters referred to in Article 1 of Regulation No 864/2007 cover a claim such as that submitted by the State of Libya pursuant to the foregoing laws in order to recover assets of the deceased BC that are present in Malta?

If it is established that Regulation No 864/2007 applies to the present case, what is the distinction between the obligation arising out of a tort/delict (Article 4(1) of the regulation) and unjust enrichment arising out of a tort/delict (Article 10(1) of the regulation) in a case such as that at issue before this Court?’

It should be noted that BC (the deceased) was subject to an asset freeze imposed by the United Nations Security Council and implemented by the European Union. The hearing is meant to help clarifying whether such a fact has an impact on the competences of the referring court in the proceedings pending before it.

The Court of Justice has assigned this case to a five-judge panel (Judges Biltgen – reporting-, Ziemele, Schalin, Kumin and Gervasoni), with an opinion by Advocate General Richard de la Tour.

The only judgement scheduled so far will be published on 21 May, in case C-198/24, Mr Green, on the interpretation of Article 7 of the European Account Preservation Order regulation (see summary here). The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Court for Civil Matters, Vienna) asked the Court:

‘Is Article 7(1) of [the EAPO Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that action taken by the debtor three years or more previously and/or obstacles to enforcement of the judgment in the Member State of the debtor are not to be taken into account?’

Former Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinion last October, proposing the Court to answer that the provision at stake

‘[M]ust be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision is satisfied where the creditor has adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the court seised that there is an urgent need for a Preservation Order, inasmuch as there exists a real risk that, if that measure is not issued, the debtor may have dissipated, concealed or destroyed his or her assets or disposed of them at an undervalue by the time the creditor is able to enforce an existing or future judgment, thereby impeding or, at least, making substantially more difficult the recovery of the creditor’s claim.’

Finally, although the request for a preliminary ruling was triggered by the national (UK) implementation of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), readers of this blog should also keep an eye in the Court’s decision(Grand Chamber), expected on 19 May, in case C-350/24, Crédit agricole Corporate & Investment Bank. The background of the case can be consulted in this EAPIL Blog post of June 2025. The French Cour de cassation is asking the Court of Justice the following question:

‘(1)      Must the [Withdrawal Agreement] be interpreted as meaning that United Kingdom legislation transposing Article 19 of [the Equal Treatment Directive] must be regarded as legislation of a Member State transposing a directive, by a court giving its ruling after the end of the transition period, where the facts are prior to that date and/or the proceedings were brought before that date?

(2)      Must Article 288 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing a dispute between individuals, which is obliged to apply the law of another Member State, must interpret the provisions of that law in conformity with a directive, without this being precluded by the principle of mutual trust?

(3)      If the national court considers that it is impossible to interpret those provisions in conformity with the directive, must it disapply that law, as it would do with its own national law, where a general principle of EU law or a provision of primary law, as given concrete expression in a directive, is at issue?‘

Advocate General Kokott had proposed the Court of Justice to answer that:

‘(1)      A court of a Member State ruling after the end of the transition period must regard United Kingdom legislation transposing Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation as legislation transposing EU law where its decision relates to facts in the United Kingdom prior to that date. In that regard, the court must – like a court of the United Kingdom – comply with the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice established before the end of the transition period and take due account of the case-law established since, without, however, being able to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

(2)      A national court seised of a dispute between individuals and called upon to apply the law of another Member State is required, applying the interpretive methods recognised in that other Member State and having regard to the general principles of law, to interpret the provisions of that law in conformity with EU law.‘