Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:602
Date: 2024-07-11
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Police cooperation;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-265/23 – 1 
Case C-265/23 [Volieva] 1 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
25 April 2023 
Referring court: 
Okrazhen sad – Sliven (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 April 2023 
Criminal proceedings against: 
DM 
AV 
WO 
AQ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The dispute in the main proceedings is governed by Article 247 et seq. of the 
Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure; ‘the NPK’) and 
was brought by the indictment filed by the now dissolved Spetsializirana 
prokuratura (Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria) at the Spetsializiran 
nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria), which was also dissolved 
on 7 July 2022, against DM, AV, WO and AQ for the criminal offences provided 
for in Article 321(3), read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of that article, of the 
Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code; ‘the NK’) (membership of a criminal 
organisation) and Article 301(1) of the NK (passive bribery). 
 
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. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-265/23  
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law; Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
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 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? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Treaty on European Union – Article 19(1) and (3); 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Article 267; 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 47, 48 and 52; 
Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight 
against organised crime – Article 4; 
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 
2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings – recitals 10, 14, 27, 28 
and 41; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 June 2018, Kolev 
and Others (C-612/15, EU:C:2018:392); 
European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’) – judgments of 10 May 2011, 
Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (CE:ECHR:2011:0510JUD004805906), and 
VOLIEVA  
 
3 
of 10 January 2012, Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria 
(CE:ECHR:2012:0110JUD003266206). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
The NPK in the version in force from 29 April 2006 to 28 May 2010 – 
Article 334, point 4, Article 368(1) and (2), Article 369(1) to (5); 
Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie na NPK (Bulgarian law amending and 
supplementing the NPK, published in [State Gazette; ‘DV’] No 32 of 2010, in 
force since 28 May 2010) – Paragraphs 51, 54 and 66; 
The NPK in the version in force from 13 August 2013 to 5 November 2017 – 
Article 334, point 4, Article 368(1) and (2), Article 369(1) to (5); 
The NPK in the version in force since 5 November 2017 – Article 246(1) to (4), 
Article 334, point 4, Article 368(1) to (3), Article 369(1) to (3); 
Prehodni i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi kam Zakona za izmenenie i dopalnenie na 
Zakona za sadebnata vlast (Transitional and final provisions of the Law amending 
and supplementing the Law on the judiciary, DV No 32 of 2022, in force since 
28 July 2022, as amended by judgment No 7 of the Konstitutsionen sad na 
Republika Bulgaria [Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria] – No 56 of 
2022) – Paragraphs 43, 48 to 53, 59; 
The NK – Articles 20, 26, 301, 321. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 5 July 2013, five persons, including DM, were charged, by an order of an 
investigating authority, with committing offences under Article 321(3) of the NK, 
read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of that article (membership of a criminal 
organisation), and Article 301(1) of the NK (passive bribery). 
2 Due to the excessive length of the pre-trial proceedings, the accused DM applied 
to the Specialised Criminal Court on 31 August 2015 for the case to be brought to 
trial in accordance with the provision of Article 368(1) of the NPK in force at that 
time. 
3 By order dated 30 September 2015 entered in the register of the Specialised 
Criminal Court, the court returned the case file in accordance with Article 369(1) 
of the NPK in the version in force at that time and gave the Specialised Public 
Prosecutor’s Office the opportunity, within a period of three months, either to 
submit the case to the court for trial with an indictment, with a proposal for release 
from criminal liability with the imposition of an administrative penalty or with a 
plea bargain, or to discontinue the criminal proceedings by notifying the court. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-265/23  
 
4  
4 On 8 January 2016, the Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted the case 
to the court for trial by filing an indictment against four accused persons, 
including the accused DM, for offences under Article 321(3) of the NK, read in 
conjunction with paragraph 2 of that article, and Article 301(1) of the NK. 
5 On 3 February 2016, in accordance with Article 249(2) of the NPK, read in 
conjunction with Article 248(2), point 3 thereof, in the version in force on that 
date, the Judge-Rapporteur, by decision of the same date, discontinued the court 
proceedings on the ground of substantial procedural errors capable of being 
rectified and referred the case back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for 
rectification of the errors. In accordance with Article 369(3) of the NPK, in the 
version prior to the amendment of 5 November 2017, a period of one month was 
given to the Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office to rectify the procedural errors 
and to submit the case relating to the charges against DM for criminal offences 
provided for in Article 321(3) of the NK, read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of 
that article, and Article 301(1) of the NK to the court. 
6 A new indictment was drawn up within the prescribed period of one month. This 
was filed with the court by the Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office on 
22 March 2016. 
7 Proceedings were initiated before the Specialised Criminal Court. The Judge-
Rapporteur was unable to establish that substantial procedural errors capable of 
being rectified were made during the pre-trial proceedings and therefore ordered 
that the case be heard in open court, with summons to the parties. 
8 By application of 5 April 2016 and objection of 13 April 2016, the accused DM 
requested that the formation of the Specialised Criminal Court dealing with the 
case entirely discontinue the criminal proceedings against her in accordance with 
the third alternative of Article 369(4) of the NPK, in the version prior to its 
amendment of 5 November 2017, on account of new procedural errors made 
during the pre-trial proceedings. 
9 The representatives of the accused DM submitted the same applications at the 
hearings on 25 May 2016 and 27 June 2016. That court rejected those applications 
by separate recorded orders, taking the view that the indictment complied with the 
requirements of Article 246 of the NPK. 
10 On 5 November 2017, amendments to Chapter XXVI of the NPK entered into 
force, abolishing the possibility for criminal proceedings to be discontinued on 
account of the excessive length of pre-trial proceedings or on account of 
substantial procedural errors made during pre-trial proceedings. 
11 The case was heard in public for more than three and a half years before the 
Specialised Criminal Court (the proceedings were initiated on 23 March 2016 and 
closed by judgment of 19 November 2019). 
VOLIEVA  
 
5 
12 By judgment of 19 November 2019, the Specialised Criminal Court found the 
accused DM guilty of the offences with which she was charged and imposed on 
her a custodial sentence and a fine and deprived her of the rights attached to her 
office. 
13 That judgment was challenged before the Apelativen spetsializiran nakazatelen 
sad (Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal) and proceedings were brought before 
that court. 
14 By judgment of 9 November 2020, the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal set 
aside the judgment of the Specialised Criminal Court in its entirety and referred 
the case back to that court for further prosecution, on the ground that there were 
substantial procedural errors capable of being rectified, with the result that the 
indictment of 22 March 2016 did not meet the requirements of Article 246 of the 
NPK. 
15 Following the referral of the case back to the Specialised Criminal Court, on 
3 February 2021, in the context of considering and deciding on the points referred 
to in Article 248(1) of the NPK, that court discontinued the court proceedings by 
recorded order and referred the case back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for 
rectification of the substantial procedural errors made when drafting the 
indictment in the pre-trial proceedings, which were identified and detailed in the 
judgment of the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal. 
16 On 7 July 2022, the Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged a new 
indictment against the accused DM and the three other accused persons. 
Proceedings were initiated before the Specialised Criminal Court. 
17 By decision of 15 July 2022, the Judge-Rapporteur discontinued the proceedings 
before the Specialised Criminal Court and referred the case to the court having 
jurisdiction, Okrazhen sad Stara Zagora (Regional Court, Stara Zagora), in 
accordance with Paragraph 49 of the Prehodnite i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi kam 
Zakona za izmenenie i dopalnenie na Zakona za sadebnata vlast (Transitional and 
final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on the 
judiciary, DV No 32 of 26 April 2022, which entered into force on 28 July 2022). 
18 Proceedings were initiated before the Regional Court, Stara Zagora, in which, 
however, all the judges declared themselves to be biased. The court proceedings 
were discontinued and, in accordance with Article 43, point 3 of the NPK, the 
case was referred to the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation) 
for the designation of another court of equal rank to hear it, the court having 
jurisdiction, namely the Regional Court, Stara Zagora, not having been able to 
form a panel of judges. By decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 
17 January 2023, the case was referred to the Okrazhen sad Sliven (Regional 
Court, Sliven) for trial. 
19 Proceedings were initiated before the Regional Court, Sliven. In these 
proceedings, a representative of the accused DM raised the issue of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-265/23  
 
6  
discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against her and asked the panel to 
refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary 
ruling. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
20 The concept of Chapter XXVI of the NPK, according to which an accused person 
may request that his or her case be tried or discontinued, already existed in the 
former NPK (Article 239a). It was also incorporated into the NPK promulgated in 
DV No 86 of 28 October 2005, in force since 29 April 2006, and declared by the 
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria to be compatible with the 
country’s basic law. 
21 The purpose of Chapter XXVI of the NPK is to ensure that investigations are 
conducted within a reasonable period of time in order to eliminate the risk that, for 
various reasons, a person is charged and the case then remains in the preparatory 
phase of the criminal proceedings for years, while the accused suffers all the 
adverse consequences arising from that status. 
22 The introduction of the possibility for an accused person to request that his or her 
case be brought before the court does not prevent thorough investigations from 
being carried out, given that, under Article 219(1) of the NPK, a person is charged 
where sufficient evidence of his or her guilt has been obtained. The referring court 
points out that, for this reason, a period of two years from the commencement of 
the proceedings at first instance and a period of one year in the appeal proceedings 
should be sufficient to gather the remaining evidence. 
23 In the 2006 version of Chapter XXVI of the NPK, the legislature also provided for 
the possibility that the court of first instance may not exercise its power, under 
Art. 369(4) of the NPK, to discontinue the criminal proceedings under certain 
conditions, even though those conditions were met; in such a case, the court of 
appeal then has that power, but only in the context of reviewing the judgment after 
the court proceedings at first instance have been completed (argument based on 
Article 334, point 4 of the NPK). 
24 The Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie na NPK (Law amending and supplementing 
the NPK) repealed Chapter XXVI of the NPK in its entirety in 2010. However, 
under a transitional provision of that law, proceedings under Chapter XXVI of the 
NPK that are still pending may be concluded in accordance with the previous 
procedural rules (that is to say the procedural rules predating the repeal of that 
chapter). That provision creates predictability and legal certainty for persons who 
have requested that their case be brought to trial or ensures that they can exercise 
their right to have the criminal proceedings against them discontinued if the 
conditions under Article 369(4) of the NPK are met. 
25 In that regard, in its judgment of 10 May 2011 in Dimitrov and Hamanov v. 
Bulgaria, the ECtHR held, in paragraphs 92 and 119, that [the procedure under] 
VOLIEVA  
 
7 
repealed Chapter XXVI of the NPK was the only remedy that the ECtHR had 
found, in certain situations, to be effective in relation to the length of criminal 
proceedings in Bulgaria, since that remedy could function either as an acceleratory 
one (it could expedite the bringing of a case to trial) or as a compensatory one (it 
could lead to a discontinuance of proceedings). In its judgment, the ECtHR held 
that Bulgaria must introduce, within 12 months from the date on which its 
judgment became final, an effective remedy which complied with the 
requirements set out in that judgment. 
26 In 2012, the ECtHR again held, in paragraph 85 of the judgment in Biser Kostov v. 
Bulgaria, that the procedure under Article 239a (repealed) of the former NPK, 
introduced by the Zakon za izmenenie i dopalnenie (Amending and supplementing 
law, DV No 50/2003), which for the first time provided for an accused person to 
request that his or her case be brought to trial, was the only remedy which could 
be considered effective in respect of complaints about the excessive length of 
criminal proceedings. The ECtHR added that, in the case in question, the 
procedure under Article 239a of the NPK ‘brought to an abrupt end a deficient 
investigation marked by an obstinate refusal of the prosecutor to address the 
concerns repeatedly expressed by the courts’. In other words, the referral of the 
case for trial at the request of the accused is the consequence, not the cause, of an 
infringement of rights. 
27 As a result of those two judgments of the ECtHR, as well as other adverse rulings 
against Bulgaria by the ECtHR concerning the excessive length of proceedings, 
Chapter XXVI of the NPK was re-enacted in 2013 (DV No 71/2013), with almost 
identical wording to that of 2006. Article 368(1) was amended to provide that the 
period during which the case was pending before the court or the criminal 
proceedings were suspended was excluded from the two-year period. The period 
referred to in Article 369(1) was extended from two to three months. The 
possibility for the Court of Appeal to discontinue criminal proceedings under 
Article 334, point 4 of the NPK if the court of first instance has not made use of 
its power under Article 369(4) of the NPK was reintroduced. 
28 The referring court notes that, in the present case, the accused DM requested that 
her case was brought for trial on 31 August 2015, at which time the 2013 version 
of Chapter XXVI of the NPK was in force. For that reason, that court held that the 
conditions laid down in Article 368(1) of the NPK were satisfied and granted the 
Public Prosecutor’s Office a period of three months in which to submit an 
indictment to the court. The Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged that indictment, but 
the court found that substantial procedural errors had been made during the pre-
trial proceedings and therefore granted the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in 
accordance with Article 369(3) of the applicable NPK, a final period of one month 
to rectify those procedural errors. If the Public Prosecutor’s Office fails to rectify 
the procedural errors within the prescribed period or commits new procedural 
errors, it is imperative, in accordance with Article 369(4) of the NPK, that the 
criminal proceedings against the accused DM be discontinued, even in the absence 
of a request to that effect from the parties to the proceedings. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-265/23  
 
8  
29 The Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted a new indictment to the court on 
22 March 2016, within the prescribed period of one month. According to the 
referring court, the main source of disagreement is whether that indictment meets 
the requirements of Article 246 of the NPK, according to which the indictment 
must be clearly and unambiguously formulated so that the accused can understand 
it, effectively organise his or her defence and gather the relevant evidence. That 
question was discussed at the hearings on 25 May 2016 and 27 June 2016 at the 
request of the accused DM, the latter’s representatives referring to defects they 
considered to be present in the indictment and demanding the discontinuation of 
the criminal proceedings brought against the accused, in accordance with the third 
alternative of Article 369(4) of the NPK in force at that time in 2016. However, 
the court rejected those arguments, found that there were no substantial procedural 
errors capable of being rectified and refused to discontinue the criminal 
proceedings against the accused DM. 
30 According to the provisions of the NPK, decisions of the court discontinuing 
criminal proceedings are subject to independent challenge on appeal (both by the 
accused and the Public Prosecutor’s Office), but decisions refusing to discontinue 
proceedings are not. Those decisions are, indeed, subject to judicial review, but 
together with the judgment delivered by the court of first instance. Therefore, at 
this stage of the criminal proceedings, the possibilities of legal protection under 
the 2016 proceedings at first instance in relation to the right, arising from the third 
alternative of Article 369(4) of the NPK, for the criminal proceedings against the 
accused DM to be entirely discontinued, have been exhausted. 
31 If the court of first instance has not exercised its powers under Article 369(4) of 
the NPK, there is, in accordance with the version of the NPK then in force 
(Article 334, point 4), the possibility to protect that right to discontinuation, 
namely in the context of the review of the conviction on appeal. If the court of 
second instance finds that procedural errors were indeed committed in the pre-trial 
proceedings, including in the drafting of the indictment, it must set aside the 
conviction and, under the second alternative of Article 334, point 4, discontinue 
the criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 369(4) of the NPK in force. 
That power of the court of appeal creates legal certainty and predictability for the 
persons for whom the right under Article 369(4) of the NPK has arisen. 
Furthermore, that power of the court of second instance shows that, in principle, 
the procedure under Chapter XXVI of the NPK does not end when the indictment 
is submitted to the court. 
32 In the view of the referring court, the proceedings that the accused requested be 
brought on 31 August 2015 in accordance with Chapter XXVI of the NPK are 
therefore still pending until the final conclusion of the criminal proceedings 
against her, that is to say are still pending at the present time. Since the court of 
first instance refused to discontinue the criminal proceedings against her, the only 
way, on 27 June 2016, for the accused DM to protect this right was to request that 
the Court of Appeal do so, but only after the court of first instance had delivered 
its criminal judgment. 
VOLIEVA  
 
9 
33 While the court was hearing the case that was pending in 2016, legislative 
amendments to Chapter XXVI of the NPK entered into force in the meantime, 
namely on 5 November 2017. Those amendments abolished the institution, 
applied until that point, of a case being tried at the request of the accused. Unlike 
when Chapter XXVI of the NPK was previously repealed, this time there is no 
transitional provision for pending proceedings under Chapter XXVI of the NPK, 
such as those of the accused DM. A completely different mechanism has been 
introduced, aimed at accelerating the pre-trial and court proceedings, but without a 
compensatory function in case the acceleration measures are unsuccessful. In fact, 
the possibility for criminal proceedings to be discontinued in the event of 
excessive duration of pre-trial proceedings and repeated substantial procedural 
errors capable of being rectified has been abolished. 
34 The proceedings before the Specialised Criminal Court were concluded following 
proceedings at first instance that lasted more than three and a half years; those 
proceedings had been initiated on 23 March 2016 and ended with a criminal 
judgment delivered on 19 November 2019. The court convicted the accused DM 
but, on 9 November 2020, the court of second instance, namely the Specialised 
Criminal Court of Appeal, set aside that criminal judgment on the grounds that 
breaches had been committed in the drafting of the indictment of 22 March 2016 
and that it did not satisfy the requirements of Article 246 of the NPK. The Court 
of Appeal pointed out that many of the objections raised by the defence lawyers at 
a hearing at first instance had not been properly addressed. However, the criminal 
proceedings against the accused DM were not discontinued, as the Court of 
Appeal does not, under the NPK currently in force, have the power under the 
second alternative of Article 334, point 4 of the NPK. 
35 In the view of the referring court, it is clear beyond any doubt from the 
development of the case described and from the judgment of the Court of Appeal 
which has become final that, since 22 March 2016, the conditions laid down in the 
third alternative of Article 369(4) of the NPK, in the version in force at that time, 
have been met with regard to the charges against the accused DM. According to 
the referring court, if that legal provision had been correctly applied by the court 
of first instance, the criminal proceedings against the accused DM should already 
have been discontinued in 2016. Due to the erroneous conclusion of the formation 
of the Specialised Criminal Court dealing with the proceedings initiated in 2016 
that no substantial procedural error capable of being rectified had been made in 
the pre-trial proceedings, the criminal proceedings against the accused DM are 
still pending and have now lasted for a total of approximately ten years. 
36 The referring court states that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of 
Bulgaria, in its 1999 judgment, found that ‘the provision under which pending 
proceedings are discontinued […] is contrary to the requirements of the rule of 
law relating to respect for acquired rights, legal certainty and predictability’. In the 
present case, the NPK does not contain any express provision on the 
discontinuation of pending proceedings under the previous version of Chapter 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-265/23  
 
10  
XXVI. However, this follows from the fact that there is no transitional provision 
governing their status. 
37 In another judgment, from 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of 
Bulgaria found that the principle of non-retroactivity of laws is infringed where 
the new legal assessment of the effects of a right that has arisen – albeit under a 
different legal framework – entails the abolition of rights or results in negative 
consequences for old cases. In the light of the principle of the rule of law, it is 
impermissible, under constitutional law, for the legislature to subsequently impose 
adverse consequences on individuals who have acquired rights and acted in 
accordance with the existing legal framework. 
38 According to the referring court, this view of the Constitutional Court of the 
Republic of Bulgaria is relevant in the present case precisely because of the 
significant differences between the provisions of Chapter XXVI of the NPK in the 
versions before and after 5 November 2017. On 22 March 2016, under the old 
legal framework, the accused DM acquired the right to have the criminal 
proceedings against her discontinued under Article 369(4) of the NPK. She 
expressed that she wished to exercise that right on four occasions. The fact that, 
due to a judicial error, the acquisition of that right was not established until almost 
five years later, by which point another law applied which did not make any 
provisions for old cases and, in that sense, created adverse consequences for them, 
has no bearing on the exercise of that right. 
39 Chapter XXVI of the NPK, in the 2013 version, applied to all offences provided 
for by the Bulgarian Criminal Code, with the exception of serious intentional 
crimes resulting in death. In that sense, Articles 368 and 369 of the NPK were also 
applicable to offences that fell within the scope of application of Council 
Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA, in particular to membership of a criminal 
organisation within the meaning of Article 321(3) of the NK, read in conjunction 
with paragraph 2 of that article, and to the corresponding ancillary offences. 
40 Those provisions of the NPK, which were in force until 5 November 2017, give 
effect to the possibility, under Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/841, for 
Member States not to impose a penalty on the perpetrator of offences related to a 
criminal organisation in certain circumstances, in this case because of inaction by 
the investigating authorities or substantial procedural errors committed in the pre-
trial proceedings. 
41 Chapter XXVI of the NPK is an instrument ensuring effective legal protection 
within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 19(1) TEU, since it guarantees 
the right of accused persons to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time 
within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union. 
42 The referring court considers that the version of Chapter XXVI of the NPK 
currently in force (Articles 368 and 369 of the NPK), which substantially amends 
VOLIEVA  
 
11 
the provisions of the chapter previously in force without including a transitional 
provision for pending proceedings initiated under the old regime, and which 
effectively deprives accused persons of the possibility to exercise their acquired 
right to have the criminal proceedings against them discontinued, is contrary to 
EU law. 
43 It considers that there is an infringement of Article 4 of Framework Decision 
2008/841, since there is an obstacle to applying measures in the Republic of 
Bulgaria, as a member of the EU, ensuring that, in certain circumstances, a 
perpetrator of offences related to organised crime is exempted from penalties, 
after such measures had already been introduced and the accused persons had 
acquired the right to avail themselves of those measures. 
44 The infringement is such that it also concerns the third sentence of Article 19(1) 
TEU, since persons who have been charged with the offences referred to in 
Framework Decision 2008/841 are deprived of the possibility of effective legal 
protection, namely for their case to be decided within a reasonable time. 
45 There is also a breach of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, read in conjunction with Article 47 thereof, as the application of 
an effective remedy, which was introduced into national law when implementing a 
European Framework Decision and as a result of numerous adverse rulings by the 
ECtHR, is restricted, thus calling into question the fairness of the criminal 
proceedings as a whole. 
46 For the reasons set out above, the referring court considers that the correct 
judgment in the case brought before it by the indictment submitted by the Public 
Prosecutor’s Office and by the initiation of criminal proceedings requires answers 
to the question of whether the abovementioned provisions of EU law must be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that contained in Chapter 
XXVI of the NPK (as amended by DV 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, and to the question of 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, whether a national court may, on the basis of EU law, order the 
discontinuation of criminal proceedings against such a person as the only and 
fairest possible form of compensation for the course of the proceedings.