# C_2023094EN.01002301.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 12 December 2022 — 1Dream OÜ, DS, DL, VS, JG v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

(Case C-767/22, 1Dream)

(2023/C 94/25)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants before the Satversmes tiesa: 1Dream OÜ, DS, DL, VS, JG

Respondent: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred

| 1. | Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of that offence, and which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone has been found guilty of that offence, and which also provides for confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42, (1) in particular Article 4 thereof, and Framework Decision 2005/212, (2) in particular Article 2 thereof?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the legislation on access to materials in the case file in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets to be considered compatible with the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and in Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the legislation on access to materials in the case file in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets to be considered compatible with the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and in Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42?

| 3. | Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained in relation to the period during which it was in force? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that legislation are to be maintained in relation to the period during which it was in force?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39).

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).

---