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.

Infringement proceedings - Interim measures – Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court - Art. 19(1) subpara. 2 TEU

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)?

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 …

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 …

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

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?

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

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)

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

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

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

European Arrest Warrant for the purpose of enforcement of sentence - Belgian prosecutor as issuing authority within the meaning of Art. 6(1) FD EAW.

Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant - Swedish Prosecution Authority as issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Art. 6(1) FD.

Appeal to judgment T-399/17 - Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Compensation for damage purportedly suffered by the appellant as a result of allegedly illegal conduct of the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) connected with the termination of his office as a Member of the Commission on 16 October 2012)

Applicability of Directive 2012/29/'EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime to legal persons or state authorities - misappropriation of funds - compensation claims by States - lack of appeal - compatibility of national legislation with Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 325 TFEU and Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Structural Funds - interpretation of the term "damage" according to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests of 26 July 1995