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)

Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 - principle of proportionality - tax fraud - principle of VAT neutrality - Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - cumulation of (administrative and criminal) penalties of a criminal nature

Interpretation of Art. 42(1) EPPO Regulation - judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO - summoning of witnesses - exclusion of judicial review under the Spanish law implementing the EPPO Regulation - investigative powers of the European Delegated Prosecutor - compatibility with Union law with regard to judicial review of acts of European Delegated Prosecutors which limits the situations in which there is a right to contest decisions to a closed number of situations such as that provided for in Spanish law in Articles 90 and 91 of LO 9/2021

The judgment concerns the European Union’s restrictive measures related to actions affecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. The measures include freezing funds and economic resources. The legal challenge focuses on the Council’s decision (CFSP) 2023/572 and the implementing regulation (EU) 2023/571, modifying the 2014/145/PESC decision and the regulation (EU) no 269/2014.

The General Court rendered a judgment on a similar question in Aven v Council (T-283/23).

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures 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 and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businessperson’

Request for a preliminary ruling - hearing of an accused person by videoconference - Article 24(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council - presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial also be ensured by participating by videoconference - Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 - may the videoconference be arranged only via the competent authorities of the Member State

Note: The case was joined with Case C-255/23. For details on the procedure see this case.

The cases concerns an action for annulment against Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 regarding restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures 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 and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘leading businessperson’