Schengen Information System (SIS) - Alert on a motor vehicle for the purposes of seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings – Order to surrender a vehicle for which an alert has been issued in the SIS – National legislation precluding the person who was in possession of the object for which an alert has been issued from participating in the administrative and judicial procedure for the surrender of the object to the issuing Member State

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

Art. 4(3) TEU – Obligation to ensure effective collection of the European Union’s own resources – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 2 and 273 – Principle of tax neutrality – National legislation permitting the simplified resolution of tax disputes

Question: Do Art. 4(3) TEU and Arts. 250(1) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 preclude a simplified resolution mechanism such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the light of, on the one hand, the obligation to ensure the collection of all the VAT, and, on the other hand, the principle of neutrality, in particular since simplified resolution is excluded for tax disputes concerning the VAT levied on imports?

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.

The Bulgarian Court of Appeal of Sofia seeks clarification on several aspects of EU law related to fair trial rights, legal aid, and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings. The case involves a defendant who did not attend the trial for fear of detention in unrelated proceedings and later requested a full repetition of witness hearings. The referring court raises doubts about:

• Whether a court can be considered impartial if it is simultaneously the defendant in related civil compensation proceedings
  
• How to assess a defendant’s waiver of trial presence
  
• Whether repeat questioning of witnesses is required after in absentia proceedings
  
• Whether legal aid rules apply equally to all detained persons, regardless of financial means
  
• And whether national rules that force repayment of legal aid costs without a means test are compatible with EU law.
  

The Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) seeks clarification on the interpretation of the GDPR (Regulation 2016/679) and Directive 2016/680 concerning data protection in the context of financial intelligence units (FIUs). The case concerns the extent to which the Rahapesu Andmebüroo (Estonian FIU) may process and retain personal data under EU law, whether such processing falls within the scope of criminal law enforcement, and whether data subjects can be denied information about their own data when access might compromise security or investigations. The questions also touch on restrictions to data subject rights, including the right to access and right to be informed, and the compatibility of such national limitations with EU law.

Extradition from an EU country to a third country – EU citizen – Articles 18 and 21 TFEU – Previous decision of another Member State refusing extradition due to a serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights – Article 19(2) CFR – Right of the requested person not to be extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Right to a fair trial – Mutual trust – Obligation to take account of the grounds on which the previous decision refusing extradition was based – No obligation of mutual recognition of that decision

Interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Denial of the right to a new trial for a person who absconded and was tried in absentia - Reasonable means of authorities to locate the person - Information of the person concerned of the consequences of non-appearance - Unequivocal entrustment of a court-appointed lawyer regarding a mandate to represent the defendant in his or her absence before the trial court - Judicial proceedings to determine whether a right to a new trial exists – Obligation to act with speed.

Challenge by the EPPO against the refusal by the European Court of Auditors to lift confidentiality for EU officials to testify as witnesses in a criminal investigation. EPPO argues that this refusal obstructs its investigative independence and violates EU law provisions, including Article 13(2) TEU and Article 86 TFEU.

See Case C-865/24 P

The ECJ will hear two appeals seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court in Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council (T-797/22), as well as in Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris and Couturier v Council (T-798/22): Case C-865/24 P and Case C-866/24 P.

Both judgments under appeal concern the dismissal by the General Court of actions seeking the annulment of (i) Article 1(12) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, which lay down a prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government and entities established in Russia.

The appellants claim, in essence, that the General Court violated Articles 7 and 47 …

Common foreign and security policy – 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 of the applicants’ names on the list – Obligation to report funds or economic resources belonging to or owned, held or controlled by the applicants – Obligation to cooperate with the competent national authority – Participation in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent restrictive measures.

Appeal challenging the General Court's judgment in Case T-644/22

Scope of the principle ne bis in idem – Art. 54 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – – Judgment ordering the committal of a person to a facility for offenders with mental illness – Suspension subject to that person undergoing medical treatment

Compatiblity of the Austrian Finanzmarkt-Geldwäschegesetz (Law on financial markets anti-money laundering, FM-GwG) with Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2177 - General legal principles of the European Union - effet utile - anti-money laundering - criminal liability of legal persons - requirement of national law that an official representative or another natural person who has acted for the legal person has previously been given the formal party status of defendant, or at least of a party with full rights, and, in addition, that the operative part of the administrative penal order against the legal person determines that the natural person specifically named therein (or the official representative) committed an offence, acted unlawfully and is culpable - Extension of limitation periods

Interpretation of Arts. 3 and 4 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Presumption of innocence – Art. 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Order that no further action be taken – Judicial decision that is not a decision on guilt – Setting aside and referral back to a lower court – Findings made by the higher court as to whether the constituent elements of the offence concerned are present – Obligation on the part of the lower court to comply with the rulings of the higher court – Appropriate measures in the event of breach of the presumption of innocence