Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4590

(Case C-454/25 P)

(C/2025/4590)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt, F. Louis, avocat, M. Braun, Rechtsanwalt, A. Vallery, avocate, P. Nolan, Solicitor, B. Johnston, Solicitor, L. Joyce, Solicitor, D. Breatnach, Solicitor, D. McGrath SC, E. Egan McGrath SC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the order of the General Court of 29 April 2025 in Case T-319/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v EDPB, in so far as it dismissed the claim for annulment against the EDPB’s ‘Opinion 08/2024 on Valid Consent in the Context of Consent or Pay Models Implemented by Large Online Platforms’ (‘Contested Opinion’) as inadmissible and in so far as it dismissed the claim for compensation against the Contested Opinion as manifestly unfounded;

—declare the Appellant’s application for annulment and for compensation admissible;

—declare the action for compensation as not manifestly unfounded;

—refer the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the merits; and,

—order the EDPB to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies on four grounds of appeal:

First, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the concept of an act open to challenge under Article 263(1) TFEU, in particular the principles reflected in paragraph 29 of Belgium v Commission (C-16/16 P), and failed to draw the correct conclusions from the interplay between Articles 64(2) and 65(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). The General Court also erred in law in holding that the principle of the autonomy of Union law has no interpretative impact on the conditions of admissibility in Article 263 TFEU.

Second, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 340(2) TFEU. As regards the ‘damage’ requirement, the loss of revenue was imminent and foreseeable in June 2024 and, in any event, where an applicant requests an injunction in accordance with the case-law arising from Galileo (T-279/03), such as the withdrawal of the Contested Opinion, the infringement of a fundamental right satisfies the condition of damage. As regards the ‘causality’ requirement, the General Court adopted an unduly narrow standard of causality that contravenes the case-law of the Court of Justice and general principles of non-contractual liability common to the Member States.

Third, the General Court exceeded its discretion under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the right to a fair trial (Article 47(1) and (2) Charter). In particular, the General Court’s sudden dismissal based on the alleged manifest lack of substance of the claim for compensation left the Appellant with no chance to submit evidence to support its claims for annulment and for compensation that postdates the closure of the written procedure.

Fourth, the General Court, in the order under appeal, infringed its duty to state reasons by relying on contradictory and insufficient reasoning.

—

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ 2016, L 119, p. 1).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4590/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—