# C_2017256EN.01001601.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov

(Case C-324/17)

(2017/C 256/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Ivan Gavanozov

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are national legislation and case-law consistent with Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, in so far as they preclude a challenge, either directly as an appeal against a court decision or indirectly by means of a separate claim for damages, to the substantive grounds of a court decision issuing a European investigation order for a search on residential and business premises and the seizure of specific items, and allowing examination of a witness? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are national legislation and case-law consistent with Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, in so far as they preclude a challenge, either directly as an appeal against a court decision or indirectly by means of a separate claim for damages, to the substantive grounds of a court decision issuing a European investigation order for a search on residential and business premises and the seizure of specific items, and allowing examination of a witness?

1

| 2. | Does Article 14(2) of the directive grant, in an immediate and direct manner, to a concerned party the right to challenge a court decision issuing a European investigation order, even where such a procedural step is not provided for by national law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 14(2) of the directive grant, in an immediate and direct manner, to a concerned party the right to challenge a court decision issuing a European investigation order, even where such a procedural step is not provided for by national law?

| 3. | Is the person against whom a criminal charge was brought, in the light of Article 14(2) in connection with Article 6(1)(a) and Article 1(4) of the directive, a concerned party, within the meaning of Article 14(4), if the measures for collection of evidence are directed at third party? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the person against whom a criminal charge was brought, in the light of Article 14(2) in connection with Article 6(1)(a) and Article 1(4) of the directive, a concerned party, within the meaning of Article 14(4), if the measures for collection of evidence are directed at third party?

| 4. | Is the person who occupies the property in which the search and seizure was carried out or the person who is to be examined as a witness a concerned party within the meaning of Article 14(4) in connection with Article 14(2) of the directive? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the person who occupies the property in which the search and seizure was carried out or the person who is to be examined as a witness a concerned party within the meaning of Article 14(4) in connection with Article 14(2) of the directive?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1.

1

---