Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:392
Date: 2018-06-05
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 5 June 2018 1. Own resources of the European Union — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud and other illegal activities — Obligation of the Member States to establish effective and deterrent penalties — Scope — Obligation on the national courts — Scope — Conditions — Respecting fundamental rights –Respecting the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time (Art. 325(1) TFEU) 2. Own resources of the European Union — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud and other illegal activities — Obligation on the Member States to establish effective and deterrent penalties — Scope — Offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union in customs matters — National legislation obliging the court, where the prosecutor has not concluded the investigation within a certain period, to terminate the criminal proceedings on the request of the accused person — Not permissible — Obligation on the national courts to disapply the provisions of national law concerned — Condition — Respecting fundamental rights (Art. 325(1) TFEU) 3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to information in criminal proceedings — Directive 2012/13 — Right of a person to be informed of the charges against him — Right to have access to case materials — Detailed information on the charges communicated to the defence and genuine access given to the case materials after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of proceedings — Lawfulness — Conditions (European Parliament and Council Directive 2012/13, Arts 6(3) and 7(3)) 4. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and right of a person in custody to communicate — Directive 2013/48 — Right of access to a lawyer — National legislation requiring the national courts to dismiss a lawyer instructed by two accused persons where there is a conflict of interest between them — Legislation allowing the court itself to name two court-appointed lawyers to act for those persons — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Directive 2013/48, Art. 3(1)) 1. See the text of the judgment. (see paras 64-72) 2. Article 325(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that establishes a procedure for the termination of criminal proceedings, such as that provided for in Articles 368 and 369 of the Nakazatelno protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), in so far as that legislation is applicable in proceedings initiated with respect to cases of serious fraud or other serious illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union in customs matters. It is for the national courts to give full effect to Article 325(1) TFEU, by disapplying that legislation, where necessary, while also ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of the persons accused. (see para. 76, operative part 1) 3. Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the disclosure of detailed information on the charges to the defence after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of proceedings, but before the court begins to examine the merits of the charges and before the commencement of any hearing of argument by the court, and after the commencement of that hearing but before the stage of deliberation, where the information thus disclosed is the subject of subsequent amendments, provided that all necessary measures are taken by the court in order to ensure respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings. Article 7(3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to be satisfied that the defence has been granted a genuine opportunity to have access to the case materials, such access being possible, in some cases, after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of the proceedings, but before that court begins to examine the merits of the charges and before the commencement of any hearing of argument by that court, and after the commencement of that hearing but before the stage of deliberation where new evidence is placed in the file in the course of proceedings, provided that all necessary measures are taken by the court in order to ensure respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings. (see paras 99, 100, operative part 2) 4. Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that requires a national court to dismiss the lawyer instructed by two accused persons, against their wishes, on the ground that there is a conflict of interest between those persons and, further, as not precluding the court from allowing those persons to instruct a new lawyer or, when necessary, itself naming two court-appointed lawyers, to replace the first lawyer. (see para. 111, operative part 3)