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

Interpretation of Art. 8(2)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, read in the light of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Reason for non-recognition or non-execution – Rights of interested parties – Bona fide third parties – Mortgage creditor – Immovable property constituting the proceeds of the offence – Procedure for recognition and execution of a confiscation order – Judgment mortgage registered before the adoption of that order

Appeal against the General Court's Grand Chamber Order of 4 June 2024 in Joined Cases T‑530/22 to T‑533/22 - Action for annulment against Council implementing decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland - Standing of Associations representing judges in the action for annulment - Reconsideration of direct and individual concern within the meaning of Art. 263(4) TFEU - Effective judicial protection

First action to have been brought under Protocol (N°2) of the TEU by the National Assembly of the French Republic (Assemblée nationale de la République française) against the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. The French National Assembly seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 whose objective is "the establishment of criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection registered in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, and the establishment of a solidarity mechanism to support Member States in addressing situations of migratory pressure." The applicant contends that the contested act exceeds the competences of the institutions of the EU and is as such in breach of the principle of subsidiarity (Articles 4 and 5 TEU).

Protocol (N°2) of the TEU - Principles …

Applicants seek annulment of specific provisions of EU legal instruments concerning restrictive measures implemented in response to Russia’s actions destabilizing Ukraine - Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2026 - Violation of various legal principles, including lack of sufficient legal reasoning, violation of the principle of proportionality, and impediment of the right to effective judicial review

Interpretation of Art. 7 of Directive 2008/118/EC (Excise Duty Directive) concerning the conditions under which excise duty becomes chargeable.

The case addresses whether national legislation that allows excise duty to be charged based on fictitious supplies listed in falsified invoices, even where no actual movement or supply of goods occurred, is compatible with EU law.

The General Court ruled that such legislation violates EU law, as excise duty may only arise under the exhaustively listed situations of “release for consumption” defined in Art. 7(2) of the Directive. Fictitious transactions do not meet this criterion.

The case concerns a request for the surrender of the three appellants, sought by the UK, in accordance with the provisions of Title VII of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”). All three warrants were endorsed for execution by the High Court of Ireland. As set out in the warrants, the issuing judicial authority intends to prosecute each of the appellants for 39 fraud-type offences, alleged to have been committed by them in their capacity as joint owners and directors of a company. The central issue that arises in the case at hand is whether Article 625(2) of the TCA prohibits the surrender of the appellants in the main proceedings because a person who is surrendered "may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of liberty for an offence committed prior to that person’s surrender, other than that for which …

Compatibility of various provisions of Ley Orgánica 1/2024, de 10 de junio, de amnistía para la normalización institucional, política y social en Cataluña (Organic Law No 1/2024 of 10 June 2024 on amnesty for institutional, political and social normalisation in Catalonia) (the LOA) with EU law - allegations of mismanagement of public funds in Catalonia, potentially impacting the financial interests of the EU - Lack of accountability mechanisms under the LOA for recovering funds linked to activities during 2011–2017 that supported Catalan independence - interpretation of EU principles, including the protection of financial interests (Art. 325 TFEU) and the right to a fair trial (Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

One question asks whether the extinguishing of accounting liability under the LOA conflicts with EU law, particularly regarding whether the funds involved were derived from EU or national …

Lawsuit against investigations and prosecutions by the EPPO - Transgression of competence - Art. 25(3) lit. a) of Regulation 2017/1939 - EPPO's violation of EU law by not dismissing or discontinuing the proceedings during the prosecution phase, as required by Art. 39 of Regulation 2017/1939 - Violation of temporal competence (Art. 22(1) EPPO Regulation) because EPPO has no competence to prosecute conduct affecting the financial interests of the European Union which arose before 1 December 2019 and alleged criminal conduct has occurred between 2011 and 2021 - EPPO’s decision to pursue the prosecution before the national court is invalid.

The case involves RT (fictitious name), who was convicted in another EU country without their chosen lawyer present. The Italian court seeks clarification on whether EU laws, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, and several EU directives, permit Italy to refuse extradition under such circumstances.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW) - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Charter of Fundamental Rights - European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerns the criteria for classifying online platforms as very large online platforms (VLOPs) under Art. 33(4) of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the ensuing obligations under Art. 39(1) and Art. 39(2) DSA regarding the obligation to make publicly available a repository containing the information referred to in Article 39(2) DSA.

Interpretation of Article 6 and Article 7(2)(g) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties - Ground for non-recognition and non-execution – Informing the person concerned of his or her right to contest the case and of the time limits of such a legal remedy – Obligation to consult the competent authority of the issuing Member State

The case concerns the independence of lawyers and the confidentiality obligations that are fundamental to the exercise of their profession. The applicants seek the annulment of several provisions in Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, which introduces anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing measures.

Anti-money laundering (AML) - Fundamental Rights - Lawyer-client privilege - Independence and confidentiality obligations

Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty – Grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement – Article 9(1)(i) – Person concerned who did not appear in person at the trial resulting in his or her conviction – Exceptions – Mandate conferred by the person concerned on a legal counsellor to defend that person at his or her trial and accept service of documents addressed to that person – Information regarding the scheduled date of the hearing and place of that trial – Voluntary and unequivocal waiver by the person concerned of the right to appear in person at that trial – Discretion of the competent authority of the executing Member State – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law