Material scope of Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order - interpretation of Arts. 24 and 22 of the Directive - hearing of accused persons via videoconference - use of a different type of investigative measure – Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution – fundamental rights – fundamental principles of the law of the executing Member State – temporary transfer of the detained person to the issuing Member State for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure – right to a fair trial - delineation between European Investigation Order and European Arrest Warrant

Restrictive measures against Russia – Extension of asset freeze – Art. 3(1)(a), (e) of Reg. 269/2014 – Right to property – Right to effective judicial protection – Proportionality – Presumption of innocence – Private/family life

Interpretation of compatibility of the Austrian Finanzmarkt-Geldwäschegesetz (FM-GwG) with EU secondary law - Directive (EU) 2015/849 of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing) - and general principles of EU law, particularly the effectiveness of EU Directives (effet utile).

The Austrian provisions require that, in order to punish a legal person, an official representative or another natural person who has acted for the legal person has previously been given the formal party status of defendant and that this natural person or representative be declared of wrongdoing to attribute that conduct to the legal person.

The question was whether or not the refusal by the referring court to continue the criminal proceedings on the substance of the case until the response of the ECJ has been provided was legal.

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.

The European Parliament seeks annulment of a Commission Implementing Decision which positively assessed Hungary’s judicial reforms. The Parliament alleges that the Commission wrongly found the horizontal enabling condition on judicial independence fulfilled, thereby allowing Hungary access to EU funds, despite ongoing concerns over the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

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.

Interpretation of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant - Consequences of the ECJ judgment in Aranyosi and Căldăraru for the enforcement of custodial sentences imposed against the requested person. Question: Must Art. 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority, where it refuses to execute an EAW on the basis of a ground for non-execution under Art. 1(3) thereof because there is a risk that the person concerned would, if surrendered to the issuing judicial authority, suffer a breach of his or her fundamental rights as a result f the conditions of detention in the issuing Member State, has the option or is required, in order to avoid impunity of that person, to examine whether to order that that sentence be served in the territory of the executing Member State, where it …

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