Request for a preliminary ruling - hearing of an accused person by videoconference - Article 24(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council - presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial also be ensured by participating by videoconference - Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 - may the videoconference be arranged only via the competent authorities of the Member State

Note: The case was joined with Case C-255/23. For details on the procedure see this case.

The cases concerns an action for annulment against Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 regarding restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.

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’

In Alfa-Bank v. Council, the applicant seeks the annulment of paragraph 198 of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 and paragraph 198 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429. In doing so, the applicant has put forward pleas in law, primarily referring to the Council’s alleged lack of evidence, leading to an alleged erroneous assessment which resulted in the applicant being classified as ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities, or bodies associated with them.

Request for a preliminary ruling - accused person residing in a different Member State - possibility of participation by videoconference, as an accused person, in judicial proceedings

European Arrest Warrant - Interpretation of Art. 1(2) and Art. 1(3) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Refusal or, in any event, deferral of surrender of a pregnant woman or a mother who has minor children living with her - significance of the "best interest of the child" - compatibility of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA with Articles 3, 7, 4, 24 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, taking account also the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States

duty of transparency - principle of freedom to fix prices - Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC - ne bis in idem - Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - principle of proportionality

The subject matter concerns the Commission’s infringement action against Malta’s 2020 citizenship scheme, by which individuals can apply to be naturalized upon fulfilling a number of conditions primarily of an economic nature. In its action, the Commission argues that, by establishing and operating the 2020 scheme notwithstanding the absence of a ‘genuine link’ between successful applicants and Malta, the latter has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of sincere cooperation.

The subject matter concerns a preliminary ruling request, from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands), lodged on 14 March 2023, concerning the possible obligation of the national court, in proceedings regarding an application for permission to stay, to verify ex officio the observance of the principle of non-refoulement.

The appellants in the main proceedings are two sisters and their parents, all of whom have Armenian nationality and have resided in the Netherlands since 2011 without a permanent residence permit. Following the rejection of their application for international protection and a new application for permission to stay dating from 2016, they submitted a third application for permission to stay in 2019. That application was also rejected, as was their objection to that decision, following which they brought an action in the main proceedings against the rejection of their objection.

The case in the main proceedings concerns an application for damages brought against the Italian State for failure to implement or for the inadequate implementation of the obligations under Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, in particular the obligation under Article 12(2) thereof to provide a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims.

Restrictive measures – Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Interpretation of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – term "legal advisory services" in Art. 5n(2) and (6) of the Regulation – Prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to legal persons established in Russia – Exemption – Services which are strictly necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State – Authentication and execution by a notary of a contract of sale of immovable property

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Article 325(1) TFEU – PFI Convention – Article 2(1) – Obligation to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union by taking effective deterrent measures – Obligation to provide for criminal penalties – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Serious VAT fraud – Limitation period for criminal liability – Judgment of a constitutional court invalidating a national provision governing the grounds for interrupting that period – Systemic risk of impunity – Protection of fundamental rights – Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law – Requirements of foreseeability and precision of criminal law – Principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law …

The case in question involves the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) seeking a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice concerning the application of Directive (EU) 2016/680. The central issue is whether Bulgarian authorities can forcibly collect biometric and genetic data from V.S., who is under investigation for an intentional offense.

In the dispute that gave rise to the main proceedings, a Romanian judicial association (Judges of Romania and the Association for the Defense of the Status of Prosecutors) challenged the appointment of certain prosecutors in Romania. The applicants argued that the national legislation upon which those appointments were based is incompatible with Union law. In its request, the referring court queried whether Romanian procedural rules which make the admissibility of actions against the appointment of those prosecutors subject to the existence of a legitimate private interest comply with Union law.

The Court of Justice holds that EU law does not preclude national rules, such as the one in question, which require a legitimate private interest to be established in order for an action challenging the appointment of prosecutors to be admissible. This is the case even if this framework excludes, …

Article 1(12), amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - right of lawyers to provide legal advice services without specific restrictions - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Effective judicial protection - Independence of the judiciary - Disciplinary investigation and proceedings - Inspecţia Judiciară (Judicial Inspectorate) - Powers of a chief inspector - Handling of disciplinary proceedings against a chief inspector - Function of a deputy chief inspector

Article 1(12) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - obligation to state reasons - Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - right to be ‘advised’ by a lawyer