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.

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 …

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

Interpretation and lawfulness of Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP (restrictive measures following the Russian aggression against Ukraine) – specifically, the legal basis for listing “leading businesspersons” involved in economic sectors providing substantial revenue to the Russian government, without requiring individual conduct or influence over the regime.

(Appeal Case before the General Court T-270/22).

Non-contractual liability – Frontex’s obligations relating to the protection of fundamental rights – Joint return operation carried out by Frontex and the Hellenic Republic - No abuse of process – Admissibility – Causal link

Appeal following the General's Court judgment in Case T-600/21

Second reference for preliminary ruling in the context of the EncroChat law enforcement operation - Compliance with Directive 2014/41 relating to the European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Similar question as in Case C-670/22 but under different factual circumstances - legitimacy of the EncroChat infiltration - consequences for the use of evidence in case of breach of EU law. Questions referred in detail:

1.   On Art. 6(1)(b) of Directive 2014/41

Does Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 2014/41 preclude a European Investigation Order (‘EIO’) for the transfer of telecommunications data already available in the executing State (France) if, under the law of the issuing State (Germany), a comparable domestic surveillance measure would be inadmissible and the data obtained from it may not, for that reason, be used for criminal prosecution in other proceedings?

2.   On Art. 6(1)(a) of Directive 2014/41

a) …

Interpretation of Art. 59 4th AML Directive - treatment of multiple infringements - seriousness of infringements - fines on financial institutions

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European Investigation Order – Concepts of ‘issuing authority’ and ‘other competent authority acting in its capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings’ – Competence to order the gathering of evidence in accordance with national law – Search measures requiring the authorisation of an investigating judge – Conditions for issuing a European Investigation Order

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002; (2) - Articles 22(1) and 25 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008; (3) - Articles 24, 25, 26 and 55(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018; (4) - recital 46 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 - potential obligation of the issuing State to delete the alert entered in the SIS and to discharge the European arrest warrant - power of the executing State to request the SIRENE Bureau of the issuing State to delete the alert from the SIS - obligation of the SIRENE Bureau to comply with that request

Material scope of Directive regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters – Concept of "investigative measure" – Service of an indictment accompanied by an order that the person be remanded in custody pending trial and make a bail payment – Additionally, order for a hearing of the accused person - Refusal of an EIO in part

Data protection and fundamental rights - inquiries in income tax evasion - request for disclosure of personal data under banking secrecy - granting procedure before court - court as "controller" within the meaning of the GDPR - supervision of data access - court as "supervisory authority - effective protection against a further breach of the security of personal data - judicial control

Directive 2010/13 on audiovisual media services, as amended by Directive 2018/1808 - nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege certa - Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - principle of certainty - human value and dignity - broadcasting of inappropriate content

The case was joined with Case C-555/23 (Makeleio)