# C_2023252EN.01003001.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Sliven (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 April 2023 — Criminal proceedings against DM, AV, WO, AQ

(Case C-265/23, Volieva (1))

(2023/C 252/33)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad — Sliven

Parties to the main proceedings

DM, AV, WO, AQ

Questions referred

| 1. | In criminal cases concerning offences falling within the scope of EU law, must Article 52 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (2) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime and the third sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that contained in Chapter XXVI of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) (as amended by Darzhaven vestnik [State Gazette] No 63/2017, in force since 5 November 2017), which abrogates the right of an accused person to have the criminal proceedings against him or her discontinued, where that right arose under a law providing for such a possibility but, as a result of a judicial error, was established only after that law had been repealed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In criminal cases concerning offences falling within the scope of EU law, must Article 52 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA (2) of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime and the third sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that contained in Chapter XXVI of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) (as amended by Darzhaven vestnik [State Gazette] No 63/2017, in force since 5 November 2017), which abrogates the right of an accused person to have the criminal proceedings against him or her discontinued, where that right arose under a law providing for such a possibility but, as a result of a judicial error, was established only after that law had been repealed?

| 2. | What effective remedies, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be available to such an accused person, and, in particular, is a national court required to discontinue entirely the criminal proceedings against such an accused person if a formation of the court previously seised had failed to do so, even though the relevant conditions were satisfied under the national law then in force? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What effective remedies, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, should be available to such an accused person, and, in particular, is a national court required to discontinue entirely the criminal proceedings against such an accused person if a formation of the court previously seised had failed to do so, even though the relevant conditions were satisfied under the national law then in force?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 300, p. 42.

---