Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Article 325(1) TFEU – PFI Convention – Article 2(1) – Obligation to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union by taking effective deterrent measures – Obligation to provide for criminal penalties – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Serious VAT fraud – Limitation period for criminal liability – Judgment of a constitutional court invalidating a national provision governing the grounds for interrupting that period – Systemic risk of impunity – Protection of fundamental rights – Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law – Requirements of foreseeability and precision of criminal law – Principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law …

The case in question involves the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) seeking a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice concerning the application of Directive (EU) 2016/680. The central issue is whether Bulgarian authorities can forcibly collect biometric and genetic data from V.S., who is under investigation for an intentional offense. See also Case C-205/21

In the dispute that gave rise to the main proceedings, a Romanian judicial association (Judges of Romania and the Association for the Defense of the Status of Prosecutors) challenged the appointment of certain prosecutors in Romania. The applicants argued that the national legislation upon which those appointments were based is incompatible with Union law. In its request, the referring court queried whether Romanian procedural rules which make the admissibility of actions against the appointment of those prosecutors subject to the existence of a legitimate private interest comply with Union law.

The Court of Justice holds that EU law does not preclude national rules, such as the one in question, which require a legitimate private interest to be established in order for an action challenging the appointment of prosecutors to be admissible. This is the case even if this framework excludes, …

Dismissal of an action brought by MEP Eva Kaili challenging (1) the EPPO’s request to lift her parliamentary immunity and (2) the Parliament President’s decision to announce and forward that request to the Committee on Legal Affairs. The Court held that both acts are merely preparatory and do not produce binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant. Consequently, the action was declared inadmissible.

Article 1(12), amending Article 5n(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - right of lawyers to provide legal advice services without specific restrictions - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Effective judicial protection - Independence of the judiciary - Disciplinary investigation and proceedings - Inspecţia Judiciară (Judicial Inspectorate) - Powers of a chief inspector - Handling of disciplinary proceedings against a chief inspector - Function of a deputy chief inspector

Article 1(12) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - obligation to state reasons - Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - right to be ‘advised’ by a lawyer

Article 1(12) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - infringement of the fundamental rights to protection of privacy and access to justice - breach of the principle of proportionality - not suitable for achieving the legitimate objectives - breach of the principle of legal certainty

EU Staff Regulation - Duties of EU institutions to protect informants - Necessary protection beyond the discharge of the informant's duties - Parliamentary Assistants - renewal of contract - collaboration with OLAF - retaliation of whistleblowers - non-material damage and compensation

Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/391/EEC – General obligations relating to the protection of safety and health – Parallel national proceedings – Judgment of an administrative court having force of res judicata before the criminal court – Classification of an event as an "accident at work" – Effectiveness of the protection of the rights guaranteed by Directive 89/391 – Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to be heard – Disciplinary proceedings against a judge of an ordinary court in the event of failure to comply with a decision of a constitutional court that is contrary to EU law – Primacy of EU law.

Commission's infringement action against the Hungarian Law LXXIX of 2021 adopting stricter measures against persons convicted of paedophilia and amending certain laws for the protection of children - Commission's application to declare the Hungarian law incompatible with EU law in several areas, including media freedom, advertising, electronic commerce and education - infringement of principles of EU law and fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

Scope of Framework Decision 2005/212 and Directive 2014/42 - freezing/confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the EU - Latvian legislation providing for the possibility, in the course of criminal proceedings, of initiating proceedings for the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the absence of a conviction and where there is no reason relating to the illness or absconding of the accused person

Note: The case was joined with Cases C-43/23 and C-161/23

Does Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 1 preclude the legislation of a Member State from granting a governmental authority the power to decide, between a European arrest warrant and a concurrent extradition request issued by a third country, which of the two is to be executed, without any possibility of legal remedy?

Right of a defendant to be present at his or her trial - Article 8(1) of Directive 2016/343 - video conference - effective and confidential means of conferring with his or her lawyer

Area of freedom, security and justice – Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 33(2)(a) – no Automatic Mutual Recognition of Refugee Status – Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in that other Member State

The applicant successfully seeked the annulment of Council restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

The Council brought an appeal against the judgment of the General Court on 5 September 2024 in C-584/24 P.

Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Concept of ‘leading businessperson’