Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) - Conflicts of competence - Compatibility of Croatian implementation of the Regulation - Prosecutor General of the Republic of Croatia's competence to decide on a conflict of competence for the purposes of Art. 25(6) of Regulation 2017/1939 - no judicial review of the decision according to national legislation - non-judicial authority and concept of ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU and Art. 42(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1939

The case concerns the compatibility of national rules on the retroactive application of more lenient criminal laws (lex mitior) in VAT fraud cases with the obligations under Article 325 TFEU and the PIF Convention. The referring court asks whether a conspiracy to commit VAT fraud can already constitute a breach of the EU’s financial interests, and whether national rules preventing the interruption of limitation periods, based on constitutional principles like the prohibition of lex tertia, must be set aside to ensure effective enforcement of EU financial crime law, even when fundamental rights under the Charter and the ECHR are at stake.

The case concerns the interpretation of Article 15(1) of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (as amended), in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the new Regulation 2023/1543 on electronic evidence. Specifically, the questions relate to whether access by public authorities to log-in/log-out data (log files) for the purpose of identifying offenders constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights, and under what conditions such access is justified.

The case concerns the interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Directive (EU) 2016/680 (JI Directive) in the context of court proceedings concerning administrative offences (Ordnungswidrigkeiten). The referring court seeks clarification on which legal framework governs claims for non-material damages caused by violations of the right of access to personal data, specifically in cases where a court, in the course of a fine proceeding, fails to provide timely or complete information about the processing of personal data. The core issue is whether the GDPR or the JI Directive applies, and whether mere uncertainty caused by a lack of access already constitutes immaterial damage triggering compensation.

Recognition of judgments and execution of prison sentences after refusal to execute an EAW based on Art. 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584.

The referring court asked whether the recognition of a Swedish judgment (against a Bulgarian citizen) for execution in Bulgaria, after refusal to surrender under a European Arrest Warrant, is governed by Framework Decision 2008/909, even if national rules suggest different procedural routes.

Interpretation of Article 325 TFEU, the PIF Convention, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in the context of Romanian criminal law on VAT fraud and the principle of lex mitior.

The referring court seeks clarification on:

• Whether a minimum threshold (e.g. EUR 50,000) is required for fraud against the EU’s financial interests to be considered “serious”,
• Whether national case law applying the lex mitior principle (favouring the accused due to changes in limitation periods) must be disapplied to ensure effective enforcement of EU law,
• Whether this would be compatible with national constitutional principles, the ECHR, and the Charter,
• And whether courts may disregard national rules if there is no legal framework for assessing systemic risks of impunity.

The Bulgarian Court of Appeal of Sofia seeks clarification on several aspects of EU law related to fair trial rights, legal aid, and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings. The case involves a defendant who did not attend the trial for fear of detention in unrelated proceedings and later requested a full repetition of witness hearings. The referring court raises doubts about:

• Whether a court can be considered impartial if it is simultaneously the defendant in related civil compensation proceedings
  
• How to assess a defendant’s waiver of trial presence
  
• Whether repeat questioning of witnesses is required after in absentia proceedings
  
• Whether legal aid rules apply equally to all detained persons, regardless of financial means
  
• And whether national rules that force repayment of legal aid costs without a means test are compatible with …

The Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) seeks clarification on the interpretation of the GDPR (Regulation 2016/679) and Directive 2016/680 concerning data protection in the context of financial intelligence units (FIUs). The case concerns the extent to which the Rahapesu Andmebüroo (Estonian FIU) may process and retain personal data under EU law, whether such processing falls within the scope of criminal law enforcement, and whether data subjects can be denied information about their own data when access might compromise security or investigations. The questions also touch on restrictions to data subject rights, including the right to access and right to be informed, and the compatibility of such national limitations with EU law.

Interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Denial of the right to a new trial for a person who absconded and was tried in absentia - Reasonable means of authorities to locate the person - Information of the person concerned of the consequences of non-appearance - Unequivocal entrustment of a court-appointed lawyer regarding a mandate to represent the defendant in his or her absence before the trial court - Judicial proceedings to determine whether a right to a new trial exists – Obligation to act with speed.

Challenge by the EPPO against the refusal by the European Court of Auditors to lift confidentiality for EU officials to testify as witnesses in a criminal investigation. EPPO argues that this refusal obstructs its investigative independence and violates EU law provisions, including Article 13(2) TEU and Article 86 TFEU.

See Case C-865/24 P

The ECJ will hear two appeals seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court in Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council (T-797/22), as well as in Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris and Couturier v Council (T-798/22): Case C-865/24 P and Case C-866/24 P.

Both judgments under appeal concern the dismissal by the General Court of actions seeking the annulment of (i) Article 1(12) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, which lay down a prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government and entities established in Russia.

The appellants claim, in essence, that the General Court violated Articles 7 and 47 …

Common foreign and security policy – 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 of the applicants’ names on the list – Obligation to report funds or economic resources belonging to or owned, held or controlled by the applicants – Obligation to cooperate with the competent national authority – Participation in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent restrictive measures.

Appeal challenging the General Court's judgment in Case T-644/22

Compatiblity of the Austrian Finanzmarkt-Geldwäschegesetz (Law on financial markets anti-money laundering, FM-GwG) with Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2177 - General legal principles of the European Union - effet utile - anti-money laundering - criminal liability of legal persons - requirement of national law that an official representative or another natural person who has acted for the legal person has previously been given the formal party status of defendant, or at least of a party with full rights, and, in addition, that the operative part of the administrative penal order against the legal person determines that the natural person specifically named therein (or the official representative) committed an offence, acted unlawfully and is culpable - Extension of limitation periods

Surrender in accordance with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (TCA) - Art. 49(1) of the Charter - Incompatibility with the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law - Unfavourable change to the rules on release on licence adopted by the UK after the suspected commission of the offences in question - Question whether concept of ‘heavier penalty’ contained in Art. 49 of the Charter covers the situation of an amended parole regime.

The request concerns the same dispute in the main proceedings as that which gave rise to the judgment of 29 July 2024, Alchaster (C-202/24)

Joined Cases C‑684/24 & C‑685/24

Challenges by several fiduciary companies against the implementation and interpretation of Article 31 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD IV as amended by AMLD V) regarding the transparency of beneficial ownership in fiduciary structures, such as trusts or trust-like arrangements.

The referring court raises key questions on:

• the validity of Article 31(4), (7 bis), (1), (2), and (10) of Directive 2015/849,
• the compatibility with Articles 7, 8, 16, and 47 of the Charter
• the interpretation of legitimate interest for data access,
• and the proportionality and scope of national implementing legislation concerning fiduciary mandates in Italy.

The cases build upon and test the limits of the CJEU judgment in C‑37/20 and C‑601/20 (Luxembourg Business Registers).