Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 – Obligation to carry out periodic inspections of tachygraphs – Exceptions – Article 49(1) and Article 51(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights – Principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law – Administrative penalties of a criminal nature – New law which entered into force subsequent to the judgment under appeal

Criminal proceedings against a person undergoing psychiatric treatment, suspected of possessing narcotic drugs and driving a vehicle under the influence of such drugs - Interpretation of Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid and Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings – Procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons – Determination of the vulnerability of those persons – No legal presumption – Direct effect – Interview of a suspect in the absence of a lawyer – Admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of procedural rights

Interpretation of certain provisions of Directive 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing- Identification of the criteria in accordance with which a person may be regarded as being a close associate of a politically exposed person - Obliged entities belonging to the same group - Sharing of customer screening information - Use of the information so obtained - Situations requiring customer due diligence measures.

Question referred:

Must EU law and, in particular, Article 114 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code 1 be interpreted as precluding an administrative practice which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in respect of the amount of anti-dumping duty, imposes on a taxpayer, in addition to the periodic penalty payments provided for in Article 114 of the regulation, a periodic penalty payment provided for separately in national legislation (Codul de procedură fiscal (Romanian Tax Procedure Code))?

Restrictive measures against Russia – Asset freezing under Art. 2(1) Reg. 269/2014 – Inclusion of trust structures – Interpretation of ownership, association and control of assets transferred to a trust by a listed person

Interpretation of Art. 4(4) and (6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant – optional grounds for non-execution – statute of limitations under the law of the executing Member State – residence of the requested person – refusal to surrender in absence of final conviction – no undertaking to execute sentence – limits of discretion of executing judicial authority under Union law

The subject matter concerns criminal proceedings against OB, of Congolese origin, who is accused of having carried out acts intended to procure the unauthorised entry of two minors, who are also foreign nationals, into Italian territory, and also charged with the offence of holding false identification documents concerning herself and the two minors. The referring court raises, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, the issue of the compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the EU legislation on facilitating illegal immigration and the related Italian implementing provisions, which, as regards the offence of facilitating the unauthorised entry of foreign nationals, do not provide that the purpose of humanitarian assistance can be regarded as a justificatory ground for excluding criminal liability.

scope of the protection of exchanges between lawyers and their clients of Article 7 of the Charter - cooperation of lawyers as third parties - reduction of cooperation to what is appropriate and necessary

The EDPS appealed the General Court’s annulment of his decision which had found that the Single Resolution Board (SRB) breached its informational duties under Art. 15(1)(d) of Regulation 2018/1725, by failing to inform data subjects that their pseudonymised personal data (collected during a right-to-be-heard process in the Banco Popular resolution case) would be transferred to Deloitte.

The CJEU found that the General Court erred in law:

• First, because subjective statements (opinions) submitted by identifiable individuals qualify as personal data under Art. 3(1) of Reg. 2018/1725.
  
• Second, because pseudonymised data may still be personal data for the controller (SRB), even if the recipient (Deloitte) cannot identify the data subjects.
  
• Third, the information obligation under Art. 15(1)(d) must be assessed at the time of data collection, from the perspective of the controller, not the recipient.
  

Thus, the Court set …

Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU - extension of the prohibition on the surrender of nationals contained in a bilateral extradition treaty concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a third State - nationals exercising their right of free movement - Member State refuses to issue an arrest warrant - does the decision of that Member State regarding its national bind the requested Member State in the case of an extradition requested by a third State

second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 (1) - person who is convicted in absentia - 'informed about the decision'

national law which stipulates that the co-defendants and their defence counsel must give their consent in order for an agreement discontinuing criminal proceedings against a defendant to receive approval when those proceedings are at the trial stage - proceedings at the pre-trial stage - Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757 (1) and Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/841, (2) - Article 20 of the Charter - national law that provides for that limitation also as a consequence of providing the defendant with detailed information on the accusation

Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Administrative fines – Fines other than administrative fines – Concept of ‘undertaking’ – Articles 101 and 102 TFEU – Parent company and subsidiary – Infringement of Regulation 2016/679 by a subsidiary – Calculation of the amount of the fine – Consideration of the total turnover of the group of which the company concerned forms part – Criminal proceedings

European Parliament – Members – Disciplinary measures – Penalties – Psychological harassment – Member’s right of access to the investigation file – Disclosure of an anonymised version of the witness statements that does not reflect the substance of the statements taken from the witnesses – No access to the written evidence relied on to determine that harassment had occurred – Member not able effectively to submit observations prior to the President’s decision – Infringement of the right to be heard – Consequences

Zalando challenged the Commission’s designation of its platform as a “very large online platform” (VLOP) under Article 33(4) of the Digital Services Act (DSA) (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). Zalando argued that only its “Partner Program” segment (with third-party sellers) qualifies as an “online platform” under the DSA, and thus the number of active users should be below the 45 million threshold. The Commission disagreed, including both Zalando Retail and Partner Program users in its count (83.3 million), triggering enhanced obligations under the DSA. The applicant also invoked the illegality of Articles 33(1) and (4) DSA, claiming breach of legal certainty, equal treatment, and proportionality, and challenged the underlying concept of “active user.” The Court dismissed all claims, confirmed the interpretation of “active user” to include exposure to any third-party content on the platform, and upheld the Commission’s designation.

‘conflict of interests’ between the defendant and the judge - deliberately and knowingly create artificial conditions for recusal and a conflict of interests between the defendant and the judge - Directive 2013/48/EU, (2)