Second reference for preliminary ruling in the context of the EncroChat law enforcement operation - Compliance with Directive 2014/41 relating to the European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Similar question as in Case C-670/22 but under different factual circumstances - legitimacy of the EncroChat infiltration - consequences for the use of evidence in case of breach of EU law. Questions referred in detail:

1.   On Art. 6(1)(b) of Directive 2014/41

Does Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 2014/41 preclude a European Investigation Order (‘EIO’) for the transfer of telecommunications data already available in the executing State (France) if, under the law of the issuing State (Germany), a comparable domestic surveillance measure would be inadmissible and the data obtained from it may not, for that reason, be used for criminal prosecution in other proceedings?

2.   On Art. 6(1)(a) of Directive 2014/41

a) …

Interpretation of Art. 59 4th AML Directive - treatment of multiple infringements - seriousness of infringements - fines on financial institutions

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002; (2) - Articles 22(1) and 25 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008; (3) - Articles 24, 25, 26 and 55(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018; (4) - recital 46 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 - potential obligation of the issuing State to delete the alert entered in the SIS and to discharge the European arrest warrant - power of the executing State to request the SIRENE Bureau of the issuing State to delete the alert from the SIS - obligation of the SIRENE Bureau to comply with that request

Data protection and fundamental rights - inquiries in income tax evasion - request for disclosure of personal data under banking secrecy - granting procedure before court - court as "controller" within the meaning of the GDPR - supervision of data access - court as "supervisory authority - effective protection against a further breach of the security of personal data - judicial control

Criminal proceedings against a person undergoing psychiatric treatment, suspected of possessing narcotic drugs and driving a vehicle under the influence of such drugs

Interpretation of certain provisions of Directive 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing- Identification of the criteria in accordance with which a person may be regarded as being a close associate of a politically exposed person - Obliged entities belonging to the same group - Sharing of customer screening information - Use of the information so obtained - Situations requiring customer due diligence measures.

Question referred:

Must EU law and, in particular, Article 114 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code 1 be interpreted as precluding an administrative practice which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in respect of the amount of anti-dumping duty, imposes on a taxpayer, in addition to the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 114 of the regulation, a periodic penalty payment provided for separately in national legislation (Codul de procedură fiscal (Romanian Tax Procedure Code))?

The subject matter concerns criminal proceedings against OB, of Congolese origin, who is accused of having carried out acts intended to procure the unauthorised entry of two minors, who are also foreign nationals, into Italian territory, and also charged with the offence of holding false identification documents concerning herself and the two minors. The referring court raises, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, the issue of the compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the EU legislation on facilitating illegal immigration and the related Italian implementing provisions, which, as regards the offence of facilitating the unauthorised entry of foreign nationals, do not provide that the purpose of humanitarian assistance can be regarded as a justificatory ground for excluding criminal liability.

scope of the protection of exchanges between lawyers and their clients of Article 7 of the Charter - cooperation of lawyers as third parties - reduction of cooperation to what is appropriate and necessary

Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU - extension of the prohibition on the surrender of nationals contained in a bilateral extradition treaty concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a third State - nationals exercising their right of free movement - Member State refuses to issue an arrest warrant - does the decision of that Member State regarding its national bind the requested Member State in the case of an extradition requested by a third State

second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) - person who is convicted in absentia - 'informed about the decision'

national law which stipulates that the co-defendants and their defence counsel must give their consent in order for an agreement discontinuing criminal proceedings against a defendant to receive approval when those proceedings are at the trial stage - proceedings at the pre-trial stage - Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757 (1) and Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/841, (2) - Article 20 of the Charter - national law that provides for that limitation also as a consequence of providing the defendant with detailed information on the accusation

‘conflict of interests’ between the defendant and the judge - deliberately and knowingly create artificial conditions for recusal and a conflict of interests between the defendant and the judge - Directive 2013/48/EU, (2)

Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 - principle of proportionality - tax fraud - principle of VAT neutrality - Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - cumulation of (administrative and criminal) penalties of a criminal nature

Interpretation of Art. 42(1) EPPO Regulation - judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO - summoning of witnesses - exclusion of judicial review under the Spanish law implementing the EPPO Regulation - investigative powers of the European Delegated Prosecutor - compatibility with Union law with regard to judicial review of acts of European Delegated Prosecutors which limits the situations in which there is a right to contest decisions to a closed number of situations such as that provided for in Spanish law in Articles 90 and 91 of LO 9/2021

The judgment concerns the European Union’s restrictive measures related to actions affecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The measures include freezing funds and economic resources. The legal challenge focuses on the Council’s decision (CFSP) 2023/572 and the implementing regulation (EU) 2023/571, modifying the 2014/145/PESC decision and the regulation (EU) no 269/2014.

The General Court rendered a judgment on a similar question in Aven v Council (T-283/23).

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businessperson’