In this case report, five judgments will be discussed. In C-421/23 ONSS, the contentious issue of fraudulent A1 certificates for posting returned to the Court. In this case, the Court was essentially asked to determine whether the dialogue and conciliation procedure was applicable in the event that the A1 certificates were forged and never issued by the competent institution of the sending State. Case C-329/23 Sozialversicherungsanstalt concerns the determination of the applicable law in cases of activities in an EU Member State (Austria), an EEA Member State (Liechtenstein) and Switzerland. Another two judgments concern the interpretation of the equal treatment provision for third-country nationals lawfully residing in the EU. In case C-112/22 CU, the question was whether equal treatment as enshrined in Article 11(1)(d) of the Long-term Residence Directive, read in conjunction with Article 34 of the Charter, precludes a national rule which makes the grant of a basic income conditional on lawful residence of minimum 10 years. For the first time, the Court, in its Grand Chamber composition, was invited to assess a national rule that was indirectly discriminatory towards third-country nationals. In case C-664/23 Caisse d’allocations familiales des Hauts-de-Seine v TX, the Court was asked whether equal treatment under Article 12(1)(e) of the Single Permit Directive precludes refusal to take into account, for the purpose of calculation of family benefits, children born outside the Member State's territory and for whom there is no proof of lawful entry into the territory. Finally, the last case discussed is C-277/23 Ministarstvo financija (Bourse Erasmus+) concerning the loss of a tax advantage because the dependent child of an EU citizen received an Erasmus+ mobility allowance during the period of exchange in another EU Member State.