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.

Ne bis in idem - Art. 54 CISA and Art. 50 of the Charter - Order for provisional dismissal made in a Member State in respect of natural persons deceased and previously employed by a legal person - res iudicata - criminal proceedings brought against the legal person - inadmissibility

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

Question referred:

Must Art. 9(1)(d) and Art. 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for an obligation or an option for the competent authority of a Member State to rely on Art. 9(1)(d) in order to refuse to recognise the judgment and enforce the sentence imposed in another Member State on the ground that they relate to acts which would not constitute an offence under the law of the first Member State, where the executing judicial authority of that Member State previously decided to execute the European arrest warrant which gave rise to that judgment and that sentence:

(i) by waiving the right to rely on the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Art. 4(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, which is also based on the absence of double criminality, for an offence covered …

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)

Directive 2010/13 – Provision of audiovisual media services (AVMS) – Internet news portal also broadcasting AVMS – Broadcasts that violate human dignity - fines – Prohibition of broadcasting programmes of poor quality – Principle of conforming interpretation – Limits – Principles of legality and foreseeability

The case was joined with Case C-556/23

Philippe Latombe challenges the Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 4745 final of 10 July 2023, which finds that the EU-US Data Privacy Framework ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR).

He argues that the adequacy decision violates fundamental rights (Articles 7, 8, and 47 of the Charter), does not provide sufficient safeguards against bulk data collection, automated decision-making, or effective judicial remedies, and fails to ensure sufficient security obligations for data controllers under US law.

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