Interpretation of Recital 12 and Art. 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) - Execution of an EAW if the person requested by the issuing State is unable to participate in the proceedings with full awareness because of their mental state, that state being irreversible?

Interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) and recital 48 of Directive 2016/343 and of Article 6 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter - Right to be present at the trial – Express or implied but unequivocal waiver – National legislation interpreted as permitting the continued detention of a person facing criminal charges in order to ensure that their right to be present at the trial is upheld

Interpretation of Art. 12(2)(d) of the Market Abuse Regulation - ‘disclosure of the conflict of interest in a proper and effective way’ - ‘profiting subsequently from the impact of the opinions voiced on the price of that [financial] instrument’

Compatibility of ETIAS Regulation with EU data protection rules, incl. Art. 16 TFEU, and Arts. 7 and 8 CFR - Definition of "security risk" - lack of precision - data for visa v data for travel - non-respect of the principle of data minimisation - strict necessity for consultation of data from Europol database by ETIAS Central System - Screening by artificial intelligence without predefined assessment criteria

Interpretation of Art. 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584 - Request from Greece - Requirements for "issuing authority" - Effective judicial protection if to issue a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued by a public prosecutor whose decision to issue that EAW is not subject to judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person, whereas that EAW is based on a national arrest warrant issued by a judge who, when issuing that warrant, did not assess the conditions for issuing an EAW – the proportionality thereof in particular – and whose decision is not subject to such judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 4(7)(a) of [Council] Framework Decision 2002/584 [of 13 June 2002] on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 1 and of Article 18 TFEU permit an interpretation thereof whereby those provisions take into account the possibility of introducing into national law a mandatory ground for non-execution of a European arrest warrant by a court of the executing State, if the act concerned by the European warrant was committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing State and that warrant has been issued in respect of a prosecuted person who is a citizen of the executing State?

Monitoring of SKY ECC accounts - Cryptophones - Judicial remedies within the framework of the Directive regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Art. 14(1) of the Directive - national legislation providing that a person against whom evidence obtained by means of the European Investigation Order is relied on in the issuing State has no legal remedy in the executing State enabling him or her to challenge the lawfulness and necessity of that evidence - Principle of equivalence and impact on legal remedies in the executing State.

Interpretation of Art. 54 CISA and Art. 50 CFR - ne bis in idem - Prosecution of a defendant

of Austrian nationality in Romania for the offences of child pornography and a sexual act with a minor, in respect of which a public prosecutor in Austria subsequently issued a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings - Condition of ‘parallel or successive’ criminal proceeding - Use of same evidence adduced in Austria - interpretation of "same acts" (idem).

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) - Conflicts of competence - Compatibility of Croatian implementation of the Regulation - Prosecutor General of the Republic of Croatia's competence to decide on a conflict of competence for the purposes of Art. 25(6) of Regulation 2017/1939 - no judicial review of the decision according to national legislation - non-judicial authority and concept of ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU and Art. 42(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1939

Interpretation of Art. 24 of Directive 2014/41/EU - Issuance of a European Investigation Order (EIO) for the purpose of hearing by videoconference of an accused person who is not detained in the executing State, with a view to ensuring that person’s presence and participation in the ongoing criminal trial in the issuing State - Necessity of withdrawal of a parallel European Arrest Warrant (EAW) - Relationship between EIO and EAW in cases of ensuring the participation of an accused person at trial - Assurance by defence that accused person will be present at trial

The case concerns the compatibility of national rules on the retroactive application of more lenient criminal laws (lex mitior) in VAT fraud cases with the obligations under Article 325 TFEU and the PIF Convention. The referring court asks whether a conspiracy to commit VAT fraud can already constitute a breach of the EU’s financial interests, and whether national rules preventing the interruption of limitation periods, based on constitutional principles like the prohibition of lex tertia, must be set aside to ensure effective enforcement of EU financial crime law, even when fundamental rights under the Charter and the ECHR are at stake.

The case concerns the interpretation of Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (as amended), in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the new Regulation 2023/1543 on electronic evidence. Specifically, the questions relate to whether access by public authorities to log-in/log-out data (log files) for the purpose of identifying offenders constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights, and under what conditions such access is justified.

The case concerns the interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Directive (EU) 2016/680 (JI Directive) in the context of court proceedings concerning administrative offences (Ordnungswidrigkeiten). The referring court seeks clarification on which legal framework governs claims for non-material damages caused by violations of the right of access to personal data, specifically in cases where a court, in the course of a fine proceeding, fails to provide timely or complete information about the processing of personal data. The core issue is whether the GDPR or the JI Directive applies, and whether mere uncertainty caused by a lack of access already constitutes immaterial damage triggering compensation.

Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Article 325(1) TFEU – PIF Convention – Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA on the fight against organised crime – Obligation to combat fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union through effective deterrent measures – Obligation to provide for criminal penalties – Serious VAT fraud – Maximum penalties – Principle of proportionality – Limitation period - proportionality between penalties imposed for agreements to commit an offence and those imposed for the offence itself

Recognition of judgments and execution of prison sentences after refusal to execute an EAW based on Art. 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584.

The referring court asked whether the recognition of a Swedish judgment (against a Bulgarian citizen) for execution in Bulgaria, after refusal to surrender under a European Arrest Warrant, is governed by Framework Decision 2008/909, even if national rules suggest different procedural routes.

Interpretation of Article 325 TFEU, the PIF Convention, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in the context of Romanian criminal law on VAT fraud and the principle of lex mitior.

The referring court seeks clarification on:

• Whether a minimum threshold (e.g. EUR 50,000) is required for fraud against the EU’s financial interests to be considered “serious”,
• Whether national case law applying the lex mitior principle (favouring the accused due to changes in limitation periods) must be disapplied to ensure effective enforcement of EU law,
• Whether this would be compatible with national constitutional principles, the ECHR, and the Charter,
• And whether courts may disregard national rules if there is no legal framework for assessing systemic risks of impunity.