Advocate General Ćapeta Delivers Opinion in Aviation Case C-538/25

Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta has formally delivered her legal opinion in Case C-538/25, a legal dispute before the Court of Justice of the European Union involving an aircraft manufacturer (referred to in court filings as Flugzeugherstellerin).

In the EU legal architecture, an Advocate General does not decide a case. Instead, their role is to consider the legal arguments presented by the parties, analyze the relevant European law, and propose an independent, impartial solution to the judges. While the opinion is advisory rather than legally binding, it carries significant institutional weight: the judges of the Court of Justice begin their private deliberations with the Advocate General's opinion already on their desks.

For businesses, national courts, and legal practitioners, Advocate General opinions are the primary weather vane for EU judicial thinking. Though the court is free to depart from the Advocate General’s advice, statistical history shows that judges follow the proposed reasoning in a clear majority of cases.

When a case touches industrial manufacturing or corporate liability—as Case C-538/25 does—the legal principles established by the court can reshape how Single Market rules apply to manufacturers operating across all 27 member states. A final judgment clarifying EU law binds not only the national court that referred the question, but sets a binding precedent across the entire Union.

To the uninitiated, Luxembourg can feel like the quiet sibling of the European project, far removed from the political noise of Berlaymont press conferences and midnight Council summits. But inside the Brussels bubble, an Advocate General's opinion is scrutinized with eagle-eyed intensity.

The mechanism reflects the unique rhythm of European jurisprudence. National judges, faced with interpreting complex EU directives or regulations, pause their own domestic proceedings to ask Luxembourg for guidance—a process known in legal jargon as a preliminary reference. Before the EU judges deliberate in secret, the Advocate General publishes a detailed, fully reasoned opinion in public. It is institutional theatre at its most refined: a formal public briefing delivered to judges who then retreat behind closed doors to decide whether to take the advice.

With Advocate General Ćapeta’s opinion now entered into the court record, Case C-538/25 moves into its final phase. The panel of judges assigned to the case will conduct their private deliberations and draft the binding judgment, which is typically delivered several months after the opinion. Until that ruling is read out in Luxembourg, the national proceedings remain on hold.