CJEU cases
This CJEU case law documentation of eucrim monitors, collects, and summarises legal proceedings brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of European Union “criminastrive” law, with a focus on the protection of the Union’s financial interests. This database intends to give an overview of the various legal actions brought before the General Court and the Court of Justice, with a view to fostering a pan-European understanding and debate on the interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions, their incorporation into national legislation, and cooperation between judicial authorities. Users find (1) basic information on the case in the left column, such as the reference number, case name (“parties”), and referring court (if applicable), (2) a description of the subject matter in the central column, including related links to other eucrim content (e.g., summary of a CJEU decision in eucrim news), and (3) the state of play of the case in the right column. The database is regularly updated. Searches by keywords or the year of the case are also possible.
Case Information | Subject Matter | Stage of Proceedings |
---|---|---|
C-821/19
|
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Area of freedom, security and justice – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 33(2) – Grounds of admissibility of applications for international protection – Exhaustive nature – Additional ground of inadmissibility in national law – Article 8(2) – Access at border crossing points for organisations and persons providing advice and counselling to applicants for international protection – Article 12(1)(c) – Opportunity for applicants for international protection to communicate with organisations and persons providing advice and counselling – Article 22(1) – Opportunity for applicants for international protection to consult, at their own cost, a legal adviser or other counsellor – Directive 2013/33/EU – Article 10(4) – Possibility for the legal advisers and the other counsellors to communicate with applicants for international protection – Criminalisation, under … MoreCategoriesFundamental Rights Procedural SafeguardsRelated links |
Action Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-817/19
|
Compatibility of several provisions of Directive 2016/681 (EU PNR Directive) with Articles 7, 8, and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. CategoriesFundamental Rights Data ProtectionRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-811/19
|
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Article 325(1) TFEU – Criminal proceedings relating to corruption – Projects partially funded by European funds – National legislation establishing a specialisation requirement for judicial panels in corruption cases – Decision of a constitutional court ordering the re-examination at first instance of judicial decisions handed down by non-specialised panels – Right to a tribunal previously established by law – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Judicial independence – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Primacy of EU law – Disciplinary proceedings against judges MoreCategoriesCorruption Protection of Financial InterestsRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) |
C-794/19
|
Compatibility of the German rules on the retention of traffic and location data - interpretation of Art. 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC in the light of Arts. 7, 8, 11, and 52(1) CFR CategoriesData ProtectionRelated links |
Request |
C-793/19
|
Compatibility of the German rules on the retention of traffic and location data - Interpretation of Art. 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC in the light of Arts. 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) CFR. CategoriesData ProtectionRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment Order |
C-791/19
|
Infringement proceedings - Interim measures – Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court - Art. 19(1) subpara. 2 TEU CategoriesFundamental RightsRelated links |
Action Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-790/19
|
Must Article 1(3)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC 1 be interpreted as meaning that the person who commits the act which constitutes the offence of money laundering must always be a person other than the person who commits the predicate offence (the alleged offence from which is derived the money that is laundered)? MoreCategoriesMoney LaunderingRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-754/19
|
1. Should the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof and the principle of the rule of law enshrined therein, and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) in conjunction with recital 22 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the requirements of effective judicial protection, including the independence of the judiciary, and the requirements arising from the presumption of innocence are infringed in the case where judicial proceedings, such as criminal proceedings against a person accused under Article 296(2) of the Penal Code and other matters, are conducted in the following manner: — the composition of the court includes a judge (NI) delegated pursuant to a personal decision of the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister for Justice) from a court situated one … MoreCategoriesArea of Freedom, Security and Justice Judicial Cooperation |
Request |
C-753/19
|
Should the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof and the principle of the rule of law enshrined therein, and Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 1 in conjunction with recital 22 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the requirements of effective judicial protection, including the independence of the judiciary, and the requirements arising from the presumption of innocence are infringed in the case where judicial proceedings, such as criminal proceedings against a convicted person related to a plea for an aggregate sentence, are conducted in the following manner: – the composition of the court includes a judge (MJ) delegated pursuant to a personal decision of the Minister Sprawiedliwości (Minister for Justice) from a court situated one level below in … MoreCategoriesArea of Freedom, Security and Justice Judicial CooperationRelated links |
Request |
C-748/19
|
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – Judicial independence – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Composition of judicial panels in criminal cases including judges seconded by the Minister for Justice – Admissibility of requests for a preliminary ruling — Independence of the judicial panel issuing the order for reference – Limits to Article 19(1) TEU – Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU – Relevance and necessity of the question – Presumption of innocence MoreCategoriesFundamental RightsRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-724/19
|
Is a national law (Article 5(1)(1) of the Zakon za Evropeyskata zapoved za razsledvane (Law on the European investigation order; ‘the ZEZR’)), according to which, during the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings, the authority competent to issue a European investigation order for the provision of traffic and location data related to telecommunications is a public prosecutor, consistent with Article 2(c)(i) of Directive 2014/41 1 and the principle of equivalence, provided that in an identical domestic case the competent authority is a judge? Does recognition of that European investigation order by the competent authority of the executing State (public prosecutor or an investigating judge) replace the court order required under the law of the issuing State? MoreCategoriesEuropean Investigation OrderRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-658/19
|
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 258 TFEU – Directive (EU) 2016/680 – Processing of personal data – Prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences – Failure to transpose and notify the transposition measures – Article 260(3) TFEU – Application for the imposition of a lump sum and a penalty payment MoreCategoriesData ProtectionRelated links |
Action Judgment |
C-653/19 PPU
|
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings — Article 6 — Burden of proof — Continuation of the detention on remand pending trial of an accused person) MoreCategoriesJudicial Cooperation |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-650/19 P
|
Appeal to the judgment of the General Court in T-617/17 - OLAF investigations - collection of data - infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/96 - principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - right to be heard CategoriesFundamental Rights OLAF Protection of Financial InterestsRelated links |
Appeal Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-649/19
|
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2012/13/EU – Articles 4 to 7 – Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Letter of Rights on arrest – Right to be informed of the accusation – Right of access to the materials of the case – Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State MoreCategoriesEuropean Arrest Warrant Procedural SafeguardsRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |
C-645/19
|
General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) - powers of supervisory authorities in cross-border data processings - scope of one-stop-shop mechanism - relationship lead supervisory authority and supervisory authority concerned - competence and powers to initiate judicial proceedings CategoriesData ProtectionRelated links |
Request Opinion (AG) Judgment |