July 2026 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

On 2 July, the Court will deliver the opinion by M. Richard de la Tour in case C-300/25, Duftošek. 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 main dispute concerns a dispute about the dissolution and liquidation of joint ownership interests in immovable property, where each of the parties is 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 circumstances like the ones in the case at hand. A hearing took place last April.

One week later, on 9 July, judges F. Schalin, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi (reporting) will make public their decision in case C-768/24, Hortis, a request of the French Cour de Cassation on Article 6 of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations:

Must the concluding part of Article 6 of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, be interpreted as meaning that, where the parties choose the law governing an employment contract, the national court must, pursuant to the concluding part of that provision, disregard the mandatory rules, affording greater protection than those of the law chosen by the parties, of the law which the employee seeks to have applied and which would be applicable in the absence of a choice in accordance with Article 6(2) of that convention where it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with the country whose law has been chosen by the parties to govern the employment contract?

If so, is the national court required to take into account the closer connections resulting, in the performance of the employment contract, from the parties’ choice of the applicable law, or must that court disregard them when determining whether the mandatory rules of the law of another country sought by the employee are applicable pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention?

In the main dispute, JA (the employee) and Hortis GRC SA, a Swiss company (the employer) parties to an employment contract, chose to apply Swiss law to the contract. JA, residing and working in France, was dismissed by Hortis in accordance with the termination procedures established by Swiss law, which does not require a prior interview or written reasons for dismissal. JA challenged his dismissal before the Paris Court of Appeal, which ruled that French law alone was applicable to the dispute on the grounds that JA should benefit from the protection of the mandatory provisions of French law, which are more favorable regarding dismissals given the procedural safeguards they offer. The referring court, seized of an appeal on points of law, is essentially considering whether the dismissal procedure followed against JA should be governed by French law or by Swiss law. On the one hand, French law, being the law of the country where work is habitually performed, contains more protective provisions than the chosen law. On the other hand, the employment contract in question is likely to have closer ties with Switzerland than with France.

No opinion was asked for.

On the last day before the summer break (Thursday 16), the Court is expected to deliver its judgment in cases C-196/24, Aucrinde, and C-748/23, Gekus.

In the Aucrinde case, the tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry is asking the Court about the interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1783. The background of the case can be consulted here. Advocate general T. Ćapeta delivered her opinion on11  September 2025, proposing the Court (Grand Chamber, T. von Danwitz reporting) to state that Article 12 of the taking of evidence regulation does not allow a requested national court to refuse to execute a request for the taking of evidence on the ground that the procedure specified in the request is contrary to fundamental principles of the national law of the requested State. Moreover, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not prohibit a court of a Member State from requesting, under Regulation 2020/1783, the taking of evidence by post-mortem genetic sampling even if the deceased person has not given his or her consent to such sampling during his or her lifetime.

Case C-748/23, Gekus, a request from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland), focuses on the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the main proceedings, an Irish company and an Irish citizen are litigating on the obligations of the parties and liability for legal actions taken in the territory of Poland. The final judgment of the Polish court of second instance is to be enforced in Ireland, but the respondent has asked the Irish court to refuse to recognise and enforce the judgment on the grounds that his right to a tribunal was violated on account of the fact that one of the Polish sitting judges, seconded by the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister of Justice), participated in hearing the case. The appellant filed an application for a test of impartiality and independence of one of the Supreme Court judges.

Although the questions referred to the Court of Justice do not affect the interpretation of a PIL instrument as such, the factual setting has an indisputable cross-border interest. After a hearing held on June 2025, advocate general N. Emiliou’s opinion was delivered on 1 August 2025.

The decision will be made by the 4^th chamber, with judge I. Jarukaitis reporting.