Joined Cases C‑684/24 & C‑685/24

Challenges by several fiduciary companies against the implementation and interpretation of Article 31 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD IV as amended by AMLD V) regarding the transparency of beneficial ownership in fiduciary structures, such as trusts or trust-like arrangements.

The referring court raises key questions on:

• the validity of Article 31(4), (7 bis), (1), (2), and (10) of Directive 2015/849,
• the compatibility with Articles 7, 8, 16, and 47 of the Charter
• the interpretation of legitimate interest for data access,
• and the proportionality and scope of national implementing legislation concerning fiduciary mandates in Italy.

The cases build upon and test the limits of the CJEU judgment in C‑37/20 and C‑601/20 (Luxembourg Business Registers).

Several questions on the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism - interpretation in light of a national amnesty law (Organic Law 1/2024 of 10 June 2024) adopted in Spain to promote political and social normalisation in Catalonia. The referring court questions whether the Directive precludes provisions which prevent prosecution or criminal punishment for participation in terrorist activities, particularly when such participation is linked to ideological motivations or does not meet specific thresholds of severity, such as causing serious breaches of human rights. The case further raises issues of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, primacy of EU law, and non-discrimination under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Right to a fair trial - Right to respect for private and family life - Freedom of expression - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights - Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Confidentiality of the communications - Traffic data - Right to an effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor - Information to be made available or given to the data subject

Application of EU's legal framework on asset recovery and confiscation to traffic offences committed after the consumption of alcohol and/or narcotics - Classification of a motor vehicle as an instrumentality used to commit the offence - Charter of Fundamental Rights and proportionality

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal (Bytedance v Commission (T-1077/23)), thereby annulling the European Commission’s Decision designating ByteDance as a gatekeeper pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted 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 applicant’s name on the list

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted 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 list – Concept of ‘leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted 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 applicant’s name on the list

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted 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 applicant’s name on the list

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted 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 – immediate family member criterion

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted 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 list – Concept of ‘leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation’

Amnesty for offences of misappropriation of national public funds - budget of a Member State's region and effects on the protection of the EU's financial interests - Art. 325 TFEU - territorial integrity of the European Union - systemic risk of impunity and compliance with Art. 325 TFEU

Pursuant to the successful challenge brought by Pumpyanskiy in T-740/22 - regarding Council's restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - the Council of the EU brought an appeal 5 September 2024.

The central issue revolves around the criterion of ‘leading businesspersons operating in Russia’, criterion (g), as prescribed by Article 2(1) of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1094.

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Concept of ‘leading businessperson’

Interpretation of Art. 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, read in conjunction with Art. 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - real risk of serving a sentence that is disproportionate to the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based (here: drugs offences) - competence of examination by the executing authority - test that applies in assessing whether there is a real risk of the execution of a final disproportionate sentence - role of the law of the issuing state implementing Art. 4(2)(b) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking - conditions for reducing mandatory minimum sentence - preclusion of suspension of enforcement.

The referring Court asks whether or not the executing judicial authority adopting a decision to recognise a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal proceedings, must also issue a decision ordering the arrest of that person, following which the person sought will remain detained in prison until such time as he or she is surrendered, consistent with Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

Protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law - Invalidity of Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 - Application of the Conditionality Regulation - legal term "government authorities" - Lack of procedural safeguards - lack of proportionality of the measure - Breach of the principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations - Lack of competence