No court rulings are ever binding apart from the specific case discussed. However, judges often (especially in higher courts) state criteria they would use to j

No court rulings are ever binding apart from the specific case discussed. However, judges often (especially in higher courts) state criteria they would use to judge similar cases and make general remarks in this area of law. Other judges then later directly refer to those lines of argumentation. If a Danish judge issued a ruling based solely on EU law with convincing arguments, then a German judge can use that later just as if another German court ruled on that matter. I don't read verdicts often enough to say how common this is (and certainly often arguments are copied without mentioning the source). However, in literature you regularly see that authors refer to cases from different EU member states. And why should arguments made by Danish judges by worth less in Germany than arguments made by German judges? The whole point of the EU is harmonization of law. If one legal source is consistently interpreted in two different ways in two different countries something definitely went wrong.