Questions referred:

Is the right of the accused person to be present in person under Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with Article 10(1) and recital 44 thereof, safeguarded where a witness has been examined in the absence of the accused person at a separate hearing but the accused person had the opportunity to put questions to that witness at the subsequent hearing but stated that he or she had no questions, or is it necessary, in order to safeguard the right to be present in person, for that examination to be repeated in its entirety, including the questions put by the other parties who were present at the first examination?

Is the right to be defended by a lawyer under Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48, read in conjunction with Article 12(1) thereof, safeguarded where two witnesses have …

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Responsibility of the controller – Security of processing – Breach of security of the processing of personal data – Non-material damage suffered as a result of the controller’s inaction – Action for damages

Scope of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions regarding the administrative sanction of suspension of the right to drive a vehicle for a specified period imposed in judicial criminal proceedings for road offences.

Extradition to third countries - non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - citizenship of the European Union - applicability of judgment in Raugevicius in case of international obligations to extradite - German declaration under Art. 6 of the 1957 CoE Convention on Extradition not to surrender "own nationals" - Art. 16 of the German Basic Law

Compatibility of national implementation legislation with Directive (EU) 2016/680 ("the EU's Law Enforcement Data Protection Directive") - Permissibility of processing of genetic and biometric data for the purposes of creating a police record - Forced collection of personal data (taking photographs for the file, taking fingerprints, and taking samples in order to create a DNA profile) - Refusal to voluntarily cooperate in the collection of personal data - Lack of assessment of the criminal charge by the national criminal court - Compatibility of the general rule on taking specific personal data for premediated offences with the Directive

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 42a §§ 1 and 2 of the Ustawa prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych (Law on the system of ordinary courts; ‘the LSOC’), as well as Article 55 § 4 thereof; Article 26 § 3 of the Ustawa o Sądzie Najwyższym (Law on the Supreme Court), as well as Article 29 §§ 2 and 3 thereof; and Article 5 §§ 1a and 1b of the Ustawa o sądach administracyjnych (Law on the administrative courts), in the wording resulting from the Ustawa z dnia 20 grudnia 2019 r. – Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych, ustawy o Sądzie Najwyższym oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Law of 20 December 2019 amending the Law on the system of ordinary courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and certain other laws; …

Questions referred:

1. Are Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting legislation of a Member State under which, in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings, the national court may impose a penalty on a legal person for a specific criminal offence the commission of which has not yet been established because it is the subject of parallel criminal proceedings which have not been definitively concluded?
2. Are Articles 4 and 5 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as permitting legislation of a Member State under which, in proceedings such as those in the main proceedings, the national court may impose a penalty on a legal person by …

Joined Cases C‑181/21 and C‑269/21

References for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Appointment of judges to the ordinary courts – Role of judicial self-governing bodies in the appointment of judges – Lack of independence of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary) – Jurisdiction of the Izba Kontroli Nadzwyczajnej i Spraw Publicznych (Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) – Whether that chamber satisfies the criteria of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law

Interpretation of Directive (EU) 2016/680 ("the EU's Law Enforcement Data Protection Directive) - objectives of the Directive - Relationship of the Directive with Regulation 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR) - Applicability of the Regulation to the Bulgarian Public Prosecutor's Office as party in civil proceedings - Disclosure of information.

Interpretation of the double criminality requirement in Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European Arrest Warrant - Art. 2(4) and Art. 4(1) - Acts of devastation and looting - Element of a breach of the public peace - Commission of a single offence covering various acts, whereas only some of those acts constitute a criminal offence in the executing State - Refusal of surrender in the light of Art. 49(3) CFR.

Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European Arrest Warrant - Possibilities of executing authorities to refuse surrender on grounds of national law which are not provided as such in the FD - Lack of the issuing judicial authorities' jurisdiction as refusal ground - Rights of the executing authority to conduct a review of respect for the fundamental rights of the person sought in the issuing State - Scope of this right - Serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights - Remedies against fundamental rights violations in the issuing State -

Action for annulment brought by Poland against the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 - questioning of legal basis - alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU – Alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU, of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, of Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of the principles of conferral, legal certainty, proportionality and equality of the Member States before the Treaties – Alleged misuse of powers.

Parallel case: C-156/21 (action for annulment of Regulation 2020/2092 by Hungary)

Action for annulment brought by Hungary against the general regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union budget - Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 - questioning of legal basis - alleged circumvention of Article 7 TEU and Article 269 TFEU – alleged infringements of Article 4(1), Article 5(2) and Article 13(2) TEU and of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and equality of Member States before the Treaties

Parallel case: C-157/21 (action for annulment of Regulation 2020/2092 by Poland)

Recognition of administrative financial penalties in accordance with Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties - Appeal to the Ministry of Justice and appeal to the district court at a later stage of the proceedings

Procedural rights in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings - Conformity of national legislation with Union law - No efforts by the issuing judicial authority to inform a requested person of the factual and legal bases for his/her arrest and of the right to challenge the arrest warrant - Assessment of the merits of objections against the national arrest warrant only after surrender?

Interpretation of Art. 39 of Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) - No longer relevant alerts - Failure of action to remove the alert by the Member States that entered the alert - obligations of Member States in view of the alerts (here: registration of vehicles).