Compatibility of Art. 9 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and the principle of effectiveness of a national provision such as Art. 423(3) NPK with the obligation of a person who files an application for a retrial because he or she was not present at the first hearing and none of the cases of Art. 8(2) [of that Directive] applies, to appear in person before the court to have that application considered on the merits of the case

Interpretation of Art. 54 CISA and Art. 50 CFR - extradition to third countries (here: USA) - extradition of a non-EU citizen (third country national) against whom a final judgment has been passed by another Member State of the European Union for the same offences to which the extradition request relates - obligations from bilateral extradition treaty between the requested EU Member State and the third country - follow-up to the CJEU judgment of 12 May 2021 in Case C-505/19 (WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland).

Is it compatible with the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter for a national law to impose a requirement under which a court other than the one hearing the case and before which all the evidence has been taken is to examine the substance of an agreement entered into between the public prosecutor and an accused person, whereby the reason behind that requirement is the fact that there are other co-accused persons who have not entered into an agreement - Is a national law under which an agreement discontinuing criminal proceedings is to be approved only with the consent of all other co-accused persons and their defence counsel compatible with Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757

Questions referred: Must the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 (1) be interpreted as obliging a national court which convicts an accused person in absentia, without the conditions of Article 8(2) being met, to make express reference to the accused person’s right to have the proceedings reopened, to which he or she is entitled under Article 9 of that directive, in order that he or she can be informed of that right at a later stage, in particular when he or she is detained for the purpose of executing the sentence? The question arises in the light of the fact that national law provides neither for the person convicted in absentia to be informed of his or her right to have the proceedings reopened when he or she is detained for the purpose of executing the sentence, nor …

Interpretation of Art. 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant as introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299 - proceedings of subsequent fixing of aggregate sentence - no oral hearing - no examination of guilt - modification of penalty - conformity of the implementation of Art. 4a in Sec. 83(1) No. 3 of the German Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (IRG) - facultative vs mandatory refusal grounds

rule of law concerning the procedure for calculating the limitation period - infringement of the fundamental principle of the right to respect for private life - infringement of the right to sound administration

Interpretation of Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive) and Directive 2011/95 (Qualification Directive) - Binding effect of recognition of persons as a refugee within the meaning of the Geneva Convention on Refugees in another EU Member State for the extradition procedure in the Member States requested to extradite such person to a third country/his country of origin - Preclusion of extradition until the revocation or expiry of recognition as refugee by the other EU Member State

principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege - confiscation of the entire proceeds of a transaction - Decision 2014/512/CFSP, (1) in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof - automatic confiscation of any proceeds resulting from a breach of the obligation to notify a transaction falling within the scope of Article 2(2)(a) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP

Questions referred: Do Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union require provision to be made for a judicial remedy against an independent supervisory authority such as the Supervisory Body for Police Information where it exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller?

Does Article 17 of Directive 2016/680 (1) comply with Articles 47 and 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, in that it obliges the supervisory authority — which exercises the rights of the data subject vis-à-vis the controller — only to inform the data subject ‘that all necessary verifications or a review by the supervisory authority have taken place’ and ‘of his or her right to seek a judicial remedy’, when such information does not enable any a …

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 – Restriction on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Definition of ‘leading businesspersons’ – Article 2(1)(g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Right to property – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to private life – Application of restriction on entry to a national of a …

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned – Concept of ‘leading businessperson’ – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment – Proportionality

Interpretation of Art. 31(3) and Art. 32 of Regulation 2017/1939 on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) - Scope/extent of judicial review in the supporting Member State in the event of cross-border investigations within the EPPO regime - Taking into account the examination of the admissibility of the measure by a court in the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case on the basis of the law of that Member State.

Fundamental rights protection under the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant - (Non-)surrender of a mother who has minor children living with her? - Compatibility of Arts. 1(2) and (3), 3 and 4 of the FD EAW with Arts. 7 and 24(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, also considering ECtHR case-law in relation to Art. 8 ECHR and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, in so far as they require the surrender of the mother, thus severing ties with minor children living with her without considering the best interest of the child

Interpretation of Art. 1 to 3 of Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings - "essential document" - information on the right to interpretation and translation according to Art. 3(1)(d) of Directive 2012/13 - non-transposition into national law - direct effect - revocation of a probation sentence - relative nullity and compatibility with Union law

Action for annulment – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Prohibition on any non-Russian-registered aircraft owned, chartered or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, from landing in, taking off from, or overflying the territory of the European Union – Article 4e of Decision 2014/512/CFSP – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court – Article 3d of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Lack of locus standi – Inadmissibility