The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal (Bytedance v Commission (T-1077/23)), thereby annulling the European Commission’s Decision designating ByteDance as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Pursuant to the successful challenge brought by Pumpyanskiy in T-740/22 - regarding Council's restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - the Council of the EU brought an appeal 5 September 2024.

The central issue revolves around the criterion of ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia’, criterion (g), as prescribed by Article 2(1) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094.

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Concept of ‘leading businessperson’

Interpretation of Art. 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, read in conjunction with Art. 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - real risk of serving a sentence that is disproportionate to the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based (here: drugs offences) - competence of examination by the executing authority - test that applies in assessing whether there is a real risk of the execution of a final disproportionate sentence - role of the law of the issuing state implementing Art. 4(2)(b) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking - conditions for reducing mandatory minimum sentence - preclusion of suspension of enforcement.

The referring Court asks whether or not the executing judicial authority adopting a decision to recognise a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal proceedings, must also issue a decision ordering the arrest of that person, following which the person sought will remain detained in prison until such time as he or she is surrendered, consistent with Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

First action to have been brought under Protocol (N°2) of the TEU by the National Assembly of the French Republic (Assemblée nationale de la République française) against the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. The French National Assembly seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 whose objective is "the establishment of criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection registered in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, and the establishment of a solidarity mechanism to support Member States in addressing situations of migratory pressure." The applicant contends that the contested act exceeds the competences of the institutions of the EU and is as such in breach of the principle of subsidiarity (Articles 4 and 5 TEU).

Protocol (N°2) of the TEU - Principles …

Applicants seek annulment of specific provisions of EU legal instruments concerning restrictive measures implemented in response to Russia’s actions destabilizing Ukraine - Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2026 - Violation of various legal principles, including lack of sufficient legal reasoning, violation of the principle of proportionality, and impediment of the right to effective judicial review

The case concerns a request for the surrender of the three appellants, sought by the UK, in accordance with the provisions of Title VII of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”). All three warrants were endorsed for execution by the High Court of Ireland. As set out in the warrants, the issuing judicial authority intends to prosecute each of the appellants for 39 fraud-type offences, alleged to have been committed by them in their capacity as joint owners and directors of a company. The central issue that arises in the case at hand is whether Article 625(2) of the TCA prohibits the surrender of the appellants in the main proceedings because a person who is surrendered "may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of liberty for an offence committed prior to that person’s surrender, other than that for which …

Compatibility of various provisions of Ley Orgánica 1/2024, de 10 de junio, de amnistía para la normalización institucional, política y social en Cataluña (Organic Law No 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalisation in Catalonia) (the LOA) with EU law - allegations of mismanagement of public funds in Catalonia, potentially impacting the financial interests of the EU - Lack of accountability mechanisms under the LOA for recovering funds linked to activities during 2011–2017 that supported Catalan independence - interpretation of EU principles, including the protection of financial interests (Art. 325 TFEU) and the right to a fair trial (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

One question asks whether the extinguishing of accounting liability under the LOA conflicts with EU law, particularly regarding whether the funds involved were derived from EU or national …

Lawsuit against investigations and prosecutions by the EPPO - Transgression of competence - Art. 25(3) lit. a) of Regulation 2017/1939 - EPPO's violation of EU law by not dismissing or discontinuing the proceedings during the prosecution phase, as required by Art. 39 of Regulation 2017/1939 - Violation of temporal competence (Art. 22(1) EPPO Regulation) because EPPO has no competence to prosecute conduct affecting the financial interests of the European Union which arose before 1 December 2019 and alleged criminal conduct has occurred between 2011 and 2021 - EPPO’s decision to pursue the prosecution before the national court is invalid.

The case involves RT (fictitious name), who was convicted in another EU country without their chosen lawyer present. The Italian court seeks clarification on whether EU laws, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, and several EU directives, permit Italy to refuse extradition under such circumstances.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW) - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Charter of Fundamental Rights - European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerns the criteria for classifying online platforms as very large online platforms (VLOPs) under Art. 33(4) of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the ensuing obligations under Art. 39(1) and Art. 39(2) DSA regarding the obligation to make publicly available a repository containing the information referred to in Article 39(2) DSA.

The case concerns the independence of lawyers and the confidentiality obligations that are fundamental to the exercise of their profession. The applicants seek the annulment of several provisions in Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, which introduces anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing measures.

Anti-money laundering (AML) - Fundamental Rights - Lawyer-client privilege - Independence and confidentiality obligations

Interpretation of compatibility of the Austrian Finanzmarkt-Geldwäschegesetz (FM-GwG) with EU secondary law - Directive (EU) 2015/849 of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing) - and general principles of EU law, particularly the effectiveness of EU Directives (effet utile).

The Austrian provisions require that, in order to punish a legal person, an official representative or another natural person who has acted for the legal person has previously been given the formal party status of defendant and that this natural person or representative be declared of wrongdoing to attribute that conduct to the legal person.

The question was whether or not the refusal by the referring court to continue the criminal proceedings on the substance of the case until the response of the ECJ has been provided was legal.

Interpretation of Art. 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States - National classifications and recognition in other EU Member States - exclusion of certain categories of acts - Conviction handed down by the foreign court concerns an act which is not illegal under the national law.

Interpretation of Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA - scope of victim's participation in penalty determination procedure - "offence-related" and "non-offence-related" damage - compatibility of the Bulgarian Court of Criminal Procedure with the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Art. 47 of the Charter in relation with the prohibition to settle criminal cases by means of agreement for serious and intentionally committed offences - interpretation of the term "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" penalty - deals in the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings - scope of court's assessment.