# C_2023271EN.01001501.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ekonomisko lietu tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 3 May 2023 — Criminal proceedings against A, B, C, Z, F, AS Latgales Invest Holding, SIA METEOR HOLDING, METEOR Kettenfabrik GmbH, SIA Tool Industry, AS Ditton pievadķēžu rūpnīca

(Case C-285/23, Linte (1))

(2023/C 271/20)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Ekonomisko lietu tiesa

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

A, B, C, Z, F, AS Latgales Invest Holding, SIA METEOR HOLDING, METEOR Kettenfabrik GmbH, SIA Tool Industry, AS Ditton pievadķēžu rūpnīca

Intervener: Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 24(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (2) be interpreted as meaning that the hearing of an accused person by videoconference includes the situation where the accused person participates in the trial in a criminal case in a different Member State by videoconference from that person’s Member State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 24(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (2) be interpreted as meaning that the hearing of an accused person by videoconference includes the situation where the accused person participates in the trial in a criminal case in a different Member State by videoconference from that person’s Member State of residence?

| 2. | Must Article 8(1) 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 (3) be interpreted as meaning that the right of accused persons to attend the oral procedure may also be ensured by an accused person participating in the trial in a criminal case taking place in a different Member State by videoconference from that person’s Member State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 8(1) 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 (3) be interpreted as meaning that the right of accused persons to attend the oral procedure may also be ensured by an accused person participating in the trial in a criminal case taking place in a different Member State by videoconference from that person’s Member State of residence?

| 3. | Does participation by an accused person in the trial in a case that takes place in a different Member State by videoconference from the Member State of residence equate to that person’s physical presence at the hearing before the court in the Member State which is hearing the case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does participation by an accused person in the trial in a case that takes place in a different Member State by videoconference from the Member State of residence equate to that person’s physical presence at the hearing before the court in the Member State which is hearing the case?

| 4. | Where the reply to the first and/or second questions is in the affirmative, may the videoconference be arranged only via the competent authorities of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Where the reply to the first and/or second questions is in the affirmative, may the videoconference be arranged only via the competent authorities of the Member State?

| 5. | Where the reply to the fourth question is in the negative, may the court in the Member State which is hearing the case enter into contact directly with an accused person who is in a different Member State and send that person the link in order to join the videoconference? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Where the reply to the fourth question is in the negative, may the court in the Member State which is hearing the case enter into contact directly with an accused person who is in a different Member State and send that person the link in order to join the videoconference?

| 6. | Is it compatible with maintenance of the single area of freedom, security and justice of the Union to arrange such a videoconference otherwise than via the competent authorities of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it compatible with maintenance of the single area of freedom, security and justice of the Union to arrange such a videoconference otherwise than via the competent authorities of the Member State?

---

(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 2014 L 130, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.

---