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.

Questions referred:

(1) Must Art. 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and Art. 9(1)(i) and Art. 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909 be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the case of a sentence imposed without the person concerned having appeared in person at the trial which led to his or her conviction, where the conditions for refusing the surrender of that person, on the one hand, and for ordering the enforcement of that sentence in the territory of the executing State, on the other hand, are satisfied, in accordance with the provisions of that legislation transposing Framework Decision 2002/584, enforcement of that sentence may not be ordered by the court of the executing Member State on the ground that the conditions concerning the recognition of the sentencing judgment, under the provisions of that legislation …

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 …

The case concerns the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 8173, which determined the supervisory fee for TikTok for the year 2023 under the Digital Services Act (DSA, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). TikTok challenged the Commission’s use of a common methodology to calculate the number of average monthly active recipients (AMAR), which was used to apportion supervisory fees among designated very large online platforms (VLOPs). The General Court found that the Commission unlawfully adopted this methodology via an implementing act instead of using the delegated act procedure required under Article 43(4) DSA. As this methodology formed a core part of the fee determination, the Court annulled the decision. However, to preserve legal certainty and allow the Commission time to adopt a lawful delegated act, the effects of the annulled decision were maintained for up to 12 months after the judgment becomes …

The case concerns the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 8176, which determined the supervisory fee for Facebook and Instagram for 2023 under the Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). Meta Platforms Ireland challenged the Commission’s method of calculating the “average monthly active recipients” (AMAR), which was used to set the fee. The General Court found that the Commission unlawfully introduced a detailed methodology for calculating AMAR via an implementing act, even though such methodology should have been adopted via a delegated act under Article 43(4) DSA. As this methodology was a key element of the fee calculation, the Court held that the Commission violated the legal basis and institutional balance by circumventing the delegated powers procedure. The contested decision was annulled, but its effects were temporarily maintained for up to 12 months to ensure legal certainty and continuity of …

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

Interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders - Confiscation in relation to a criminal offence, but without a final conviction – Confiscation order imposed in a judgment of acquittal finding that the goods to be confiscated are the product of a criminal offence other than the offence giving rise to that judgment and in which offence persons other than the defendants acquitted were involved – No indictment against those persons – Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution of confiscation orders – Exceptional situations in which there are substantial grounds to believe, on the basis of specific and objective evidence, that the execution of the confiscation order would, in the particular circumstances of the case, entail a manifest breach of a fundamental right as set out in the Charter of …

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

The case concerns the legality of Europol’s and Eurojust’s involvement in the establishment and operation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) between Belgium, France, and the Netherlands, formalised on 13 December 2019, and their role in the collection, processing, analysis, and exchange of encrypted communication data from the Sky ECC platform. The applicant challenges the legality of these actions on multiple grounds, including violations of EU data protection law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He claims that the actions lacked proportionality and necessity, failed to ensure the legality and usability of evidence, led to double prosecution (in the Netherlands and Serbia), and lacked sufficient safeguards for the protection of personal data. The applicant seeks annulment of the measures, a declaration of inapplicability, and …

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.

Concept of "same acts" under Art. 54 CISA and Art. 50 CFR – Member of a terrorist association found guilty, in a Member State, of involvement in that association with a view to preparing an act of terrorism – Prosecution in another Member State for a specific terrorist act committed in the same period

Concept of "trial resulting in the decision" in Art. 4a(1) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant - Additional sentence of police supervision after serving prison sentence – Breach of the conditions imposed in connection with that supervision – Decision converting remaining term of police supervision into a custodial sentence – Sentence handed down in absentia

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 …