The European Union is known for distributing everything related to legislation across multiple locations. Laws are drafted in Brussels, debated in Strasbourg, and finalised in both cities. Meanwhile, in Luxembourg, the interpretation of European law is decided. The judges of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have the final say – not only in imposing penalties on national governments that fail to implement EU directives, or confirming fines against companies that violate EU regulations. But also in holding the EU Commission accountable. This was the case recently in a dispute over personal data.

A citizen living in Germany sued the EU Commission, claiming a violation of his right to data protection. While visiting a website about the future of Europe, he used the EU Commission’s authentication service, „EU Login“, opting to log in via Facebook. This led to his IP address being transmitted to the US tech company Meta. At the time of the transfer, there was no EU decision confirming that the US provided an adequate level of data protection, meaning the EU Commission had violated EU law. As a result, it must pay the citizen 400 euros in compensation for non-material damages. Tough luck.

This case is yet another example of the diverse tasks an EU judge handles. His daily work is not just about assessing major political controversies, such as the legality of bond purchases or the scope of sanctions against Russia. Rather, it often involves quirky questions from everyday life. Recently, for example, the court ruled in favor of non-binary activists, stating that the French railway company could not require customers to classify themselves as „Mr.“ or „Ms.“ when purchasing tickets online, as this choice was „not objectively essential“ for ticket acquisition.

In past headline-grabbing cases, the ECJ has ruled on a wide range of unusual legal disputes. One involved the question of whether Greek policewomen must be at least 1.70 meters tall. Another examined whether energy efficiency tests unfairly disadvantaged bagless vacuum cleaners compared to those with bags. The court also had to decide whether a German registry office was required to accept the name change of Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff to Peter Mark Emanuel Graf von Wolffersdorff Freiherr von Bogendorff. Additionally, the ECJ reviewed whether the film title Fack Ju Göhte should be denied EU trademark protection on the grounds that it constituted a vulgar insult to a deceased writer. Some of these questions – let’s be honest – sound more like pub quiz material than court cases. But one thing is clear: at the ECJ, you can complain about anything – except a lack of variety.