Challenge to the inclusion of the applicant, Igor Rotenberg, on the EU sanctions list under Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended in March 2024. The applicant seeks annulment of the listing, arguing that the Council failed to provide adequate reasoning, committed a manifest error of assessment, and violated fundamental rights, including the rights to property and to conduct a business (Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

Interpretation of Art. 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States - National classifications and recognition in other EU Member States - exclusion of certain categories of acts - Conviction handed down by the foreign court concerns an act which is not illegal under the national law.

Restrictive measures against Russia – Art. 5i(2)(a) Reg. 833/2014 – export of euro-denominated banknotes – exemption for personal use – interpretation – cash for medical treatment in Russia not covered by exemption

Interpretation of Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA - scope of victim's participation in penalty determination procedure - "offence-related" and "non-offence-related" damage - compatibility of the Bulgarian Court of Criminal Procedure with the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Art. 47 of the Charter in relation with the prohibition to settle criminal cases by means of agreement for serious and intentionally committed offences - interpretation of the term "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" penalty - deals in the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings - scope of court's assessment.

Surrenders under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and UK - Competences of the executing authority of an EU Member State - Risk of breach of a fundamental rights - Test of examination of EU ordre public - transfer of Aranyosi case law - Legality principle pursuant to Art. 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU - Changes of the release on licence to the detriment of the convicted person

Appeal against the order of the General Court (T-136/22) – action for damages – evidence regarding pushback allegations against Frontex – legal errors in the General Court’s assessment of proof and of actual damage

Challenge to the interpretation and application of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – following the appellant’s listing as a leading businessperson in Russia.
The appeal focuses on alleged misinterpretation of the legal criterion, improper judicial reasoning, reversal of the burden of proof, and a violation of the duty to state reasons.
The case raises questions of whether being a business executive in a sector generating tax revenue for the Russian government suffices to justify restrictive measures, and whether that interpretation violates general principles of EU law.

Appeal against the interpretation and application of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, particularly the scope and meaning of “substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation” in light of sanctions following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
The appellant alleges misinterpretation, insufficient reasoning, and violation of procedural guarantees, including the reversal of the burden of proof.
He also raises a plea of illegality of the underlying EU legal acts and argues discrimination and breach of equal treatment under general principles of EU law.

In this judgment, the Court was called to clarify the scope of EU law requirements flowing from Directive 2013/48 on the right of access to a lawyer and more particularly, the interpretation of the rules concerning the waiver of that right by illiterate persons.

Right of access to a lawyer under Directive 2013/48/EU - Art. 47(1) CFR - Bulgarian legislation and case-law depriving courts from assessing evidence collected in breach of the Directive - exclusion of evidence -fairness of the criminal proceedings - derogation from the right of access to a lawyer - waiver of the right by illiterate suspects - rights of information in cases of waiver

Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/849) – Personal Scope – Art. 2(1)(3)(a) – Obliged entity – Concept of "external accountants" – Accounting services provided, on an ancillary basis, to companies related to the entity providing them

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 - restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses

Action for annulment brought by Bytedance Ltd (TikTok) against the European Commission’s decision to designate it as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

An appeal has been subsequently brought by Bytedance Ltd in Case C-627/24 P

Challenge to the European Parliament’s refusal to disclose documents concerning previous administrative cases on irregularities in the management of allowances for parliamentary assistants, based on the exception for the protection of court proceedings under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The applicant, Eva Kaili, argued that access was crucial to prove differential treatment in her own case, and that the refusal violated the principles of equality of arms and transparency.

Challenge to the interpretation and legality of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in the context of the appellant’s inclusion on sanctions lists following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Central legal issues include the proper meaning of “substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation”, the scope of judicial review, and whether mandatory tax payments by businesspersons in sanctioned sectors can justify restrictive measures.
The appellant also raises a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU concerning the compatibility of criterion (g) with EU primary law.

Interpretation and validity of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP, concerning the listing of “leading businesspersons” involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Russian government – particularly in light of proportionality, fundamental rights, and burden of proof.
The case also raises questions of whether personal conduct or a link to the Russian regime is required for listing, using the example of the appellant’s executive position at Yandex and his presence at a Kremlin meeting with President Putin.

Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 50 of the Charter - ne bis in idem