In Alfa-Bank v. Council, the applicant seeks the annulment of paragraph 198 of Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/432 and paragraph 198 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/429. In doing so, the applicant has put forward pleas in law, primarily referring to the Council’s alleged lack of evidence, leading to an alleged erroneous assessment which resulted in the applicant being classified as ‘leading businesspersons or legal persons, entities or bodies involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities, or bodies associated with them.

Joined Cases C‑258/23, C‑259/23 & C‑260/23

Interpretation of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in relation to the seizure of professional email communications by a national competition authority during investigations into suspected infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

The referring court seeks clarification on whether such seizures:
– qualify as protected “correspondence”,
– can be carried out under judicial authorization by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and
– are compatible with the Charter’s protection of privacy and communication.

Joined Cases C‑258/23, C‑259/23 & C‑260/23

Interpretation of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in relation to the seizure of professional email communications by a national competition authority during investigations into suspected infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
The referring court seeks clarification on whether such seizures:
– qualify as protected “correspondence”,
– can be carried out under judicial authorization by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and
– are compatible with the Charter’s protection of privacy and communication.

Joined Cases C‑258/23, C‑259/23 & C‑260/23

Interpretation of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in relation to the seizure of professional email communications by a national competition authority during investigations into suspected infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
The referring court seeks clarification on whether such seizures:
– qualify as protected “correspondence”,
– can be carried out under judicial authorization by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and
– are compatible with the Charter’s protection of privacy and communication.

Request for a preliminary ruling - accused person residing in a different Member State - possibility of participation by videoconference, as an accused person, in judicial proceedings

European Arrest Warrant - Interpretation of Art. 1(2) and Art. 1(3) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Refusal or, in any event, deferral of surrender of a pregnant woman or a mother who has minor children living with her - significance of the "best interest of the child" - compatibility of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA with Articles 3, 7, 4, 24 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, taking account also the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States

Duty of transparency - Principle of freedom to fix prices - Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC - ne bis in idem - Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of proportionality - double penalty by two administrative authorities for identical facts - limitations of ne bis in idem principle under Art. 52(1) CFR - justification of two administrative fines

The subject matter concerns the Commission’s infringement action against Malta’s 2020 citizenship scheme, by which individuals can apply to be naturalized upon fulfilling a number of conditions primarily of an economic nature. In its action, the Commission argues that, by establishing and operating the 2020 scheme notwithstanding the absence of a ‘genuine link’ between successful applicants and Malta, the latter has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of sincere cooperation.

The subject matter concerns a preliminary ruling request, from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Roermond (Netherlands), lodged on 14 March 2023, concerning the possible obligation of the national court, in proceedings regarding an application for permission to stay, to verify ex officio the observance of the principle of non-refoulement.

The appellants in the main proceedings are two sisters and their parents, all of whom have Armenian nationality and have resided in the Netherlands since 2011 without a permanent residence permit. Following the rejection of their application for international protection and a new application for permission to stay dating from 2016, they submitted a third application for permission to stay in 2019. That application was also rejected, as was their objection to that decision, following which they brought an action in the main proceedings against the rejection of their objection.

The case in the main proceedings concerns an application for damages brought against the Italian State for failure to implement or for the inadequate implementation of the obligations under Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, in particular the obligation under Article 12(2) thereof to provide a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims.

Restrictive measures – Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Interpretation of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – term "legal advisory services" in Art. 5n(2) and (6) of the Regulation – Prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to legal persons established in Russia – Exemption – Services which are strictly necessary to ensure access to judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings in a Member State – Authentication and execution by a notary of a contract of sale of immovable property

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

National legislation permitting the collection of genetic data in respect of all persons accused or suspected of having committed an intentional criminal offence (Paragraph 65 of the Law on the Police of the Czech Republic) - Compliance with Directive 2016/680 ("LED") - Assessment of the necessity of continued retention of a DNA profile by the police on the basis of internal regulations – No absolute time limits for data storage - Whether national case-law may be classified as "Member State law"

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.