Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:525
Date: 2025-07-03
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

summary procedure. 
17. In criminal case of a general nature No 246/2023 …, taking into account the 
previous convictions, in the judgment handing down the conviction of 
15 December 2023 …, the chamber found the defendant guilty and sentenced him 
to serve an immediate ‘term of imprisonment’ and to pay a ‘fine’. 
18. The conviction was overturned by the Okrazhen sad (Regional Court) … of 
Silistra … and the case was referred back to a different bench of the [lower] count, 
with the direction to examine whether the penalties imposed by the Belgian court 
had legal effects. 
19. The case referred back was brought before the Rayonen sad (District Court) 
of Tutrakan under a new number: criminal case of a general nature No 63/2024. 
20. During the re-examination of the case, the defendant again pleaded guilty 
(he admitted in full to having committed the acts set out in the facts of the 
indictment and agreed to evidence of those acts not being adduced); the 
SMILIEV 
 
5 
proceedings are currently being conducted as a summary procedure. In that 
regard, the referring chamber took the view that the interpretation of a provision 
of EU law in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is 
important in order for the dispute to be resolved properly, in so far as the 
recognition of the legal effects both of the Belgian decision and the German 
decision would have an impact on the penalty which could be imposed on the 
defendant. 
Applicable national law and case-law: 
21. Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) 
‘Article 8 … 
(2) A conviction handed down in another Member State of the European Union, 
which has become final, for an act which constitutes an offence under the 
Bulgarian Criminal Code shall be taken into account in any criminal proceedings 
initiated against the same person in the Republic of Bulgaria. 
… 
Article 66(1) 
Where the court imposes a custodial sentence of up to three years, it may suspend 
execution thereof for a period of three to five years if the person has not been 
convicted and had a custodial sentence imposed for a criminal offence that is the 
subject of prosecution by the public prosecutor and if the court finds that, in order 
to achieve the objectives of the sentence, and, above all, for the punishment of the 
person convicted, there is no need for the sentence to be executed. 
… 
Article 78а(1) A person of full age shall be released from criminal liability by the 
court [having jurisdiction] and a fine of between BGN 1 000 and BGN 5 000 shall 
be imposed if all the following conditions are met: 
(a) [as amended – Darzhaven vestnik (Official Journal, ‘DV’) No 86 of 2005, 
which entered into force with effect from 29 April 2006], for the offence 
concerned, a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or another less severe 
penalty may be imposed where committed intentionally, or a custodial sentence 
not exceeding five years or another less severe penalty where committed through 
negligence; 
(b) the offender has neither been convicted of a criminal offence of a general 
nature nor released from criminal liability under the provisions of this section; 
(c) the damage to property caused by the offence has been compensated. 
… 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 4. 2024 – CASE C-263/24 – 1 
 
6  
Article 343c (new – DV No 50 of 1995 (1) (as amended, DV No 74 of 2015) Any 
person who drives a motor vehicle whilst disqualified from driving a motor 
vehicle, after having a penalty imposed on him or her for the same offence in the 
context of an administrative procedure, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment 
not exceeding three years and a fine of between BGN 200 and 1 000. 
(2) (as amended – DV No 74 of 2015) Any person who, within one year of having 
an administrative penalty imposed on him or her for driving a motor vehicle 
without a valid driving licence, commits that same offence shall be punishable by 
a custodial sentence of between one year and three years and a fine of between 
BGN 500 and BGN 1 200. 
… 
Article 345(1) Any person who uses a licence plate issued for another motor 
vehicle or a licence plate not issued by the competent authorities shall be 
punished by a custodial sentence not exceeding one year or a fine of between 
BGN 500 and BGN 1 000. 
(2) The penalty provided for in paragraph 1 shall also be applied to anyone who 
drives a motor vehicle which is not duly registered.’ 
22. Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘the 
NPK’) 
‘Article 247(1) Proceedings at first instance shall be instituted: 
1. on indictment; and 
2. … on a complaint lodged by the victim of the offence.’ 
23. Naredba no 8 ot 26 februari 2008 g. za funktsiite i organizatsiata na 
deynostta na byurata za sadimost (Regulation No 8 of 26 February 2008 on the 
functions and the organisation of the activities of criminal records offices) 
‘Article 40(1) All convictions and administrative penalties handed down pursuant 
to Article 78a of the NK shall be entered in the criminal record.’ 
The provision or act of which interpretation is sought: 
24. Article 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 
2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European 
Union in the course of new criminal proceedings: 
‘Each Member State shall ensure that in the course of criminal proceedings 
against a person, previous convictions handed down against the same person for 
different facts in other Member States, in respect of which information has been 
obtained under applicable instruments on mutual legal assistance or on the 
exchange of information extracted from criminal records, are taken into account 
SMILIEV 
 
7 
to the extent previous national convictions are taken into account, and that 
equivalent legal effects are attached to them as to previous national convictions, 
in accordance with national law.’ 
25. Article 2(a) of Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 
26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information 
extracted from the criminal record between Member States: 
‘(a) “conviction” means any final decision of a criminal court against a natural 
person in respect of a criminal offence, to the extent these decisions are entered in 
the criminal record of the convicting Member State;’ 
Reasons why the court takes the view that a response to the questions 
referred for a preliminary ruling is useful in order to resolve the dispute 
26. The relevant act in these proceedings occurred on 25 October 2023, after the 
judgments of the Belgian and German courts became final. For that reason, the 
judgments of those courts must be regarded as ‘previous convictions’ within the 
meaning of Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA. 
27. The indictment in these proceedings is based … on Article 343c(2) of the 
NK, which provides for a term of imprisonment of between one and three years 
and a fine … 
28. With respect to the criminal offence at issue, the defendant may, in 
principle, be released from his criminal liability and an administrative penalty may 
instead be imposed on him pursuant to Article 78a of the NK, solely if the 
defendant, in accordance with Article 78a(1)(b) of the NK, has not been convicted 
of a criminal offence of a general nature. In the case of the criminal offence at 
issue, execution of the custodial sentence may be suspended on the basis of 
Article 66(1) of the NK (that is to say, the sentence is not actually executed) only 
if the person has not been sentenced to a ‘term of imprisonment for committing a 
criminal offence of a general nature’. 
29. Accordingly, any account taken of foreign convictions will have an impact 
on the determination of the penalty in the case, if a penalty is handed down. 
30. … 
IV. Do the convictions handed down by foreign courts constitute convictions for 
‘criminal offences of a general nature’? 
31. Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA provides that each 
Member State is to ensure that in the course of criminal proceedings against a 
person, previous convictions handed down against the same person for different 
facts in other Member States, in respect of which information has been obtained 
under applicable instruments on mutual legal assistance or on the exchange of 
information extracted from criminal records, are taken into account. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 4. 2024 – CASE C-263/24 – 1 
 
8  
32. Under Article 2 of that [framework decision], ‘conviction’ means any final 
decision of a criminal court establishing that a person is guilty of a criminal 
offence (Translator’s note: in Bulgarian, ‘prestaplenie’). 
33. It must be assumed that there is an error in the Bulgarian language-version 
here, since Article 2(a) of … Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA defines the term 
‘conviction’ as ‘… any final decision of a criminal court against a natural person 
in respect of a criminal offence (Translator’s note: in Bulgarian, ‘nakasuemo 
deyanie’ – literally, a ‘punishable act’), 1 to the extent these decisions are entered 
in the criminal record of the convicting Member State’. An identical term is used 
in other language versions of the Framework Decisions. For example, the 
German-language version uses the term ‘Straftat’ and the Dutch-language version 
‘strafbaar feit’. For that reason, the view must be taken that account should be 
taken, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, of the 
convictions handed down in respect of ‘punishable acts’ and not ‘criminal 
offences’, since the latter concept is narrower under Bulgarian law (see 
paragraph 39). 
34. However, an alternative classification of punishable acts exists in several 
legal systems. … 
35. German law uses a two-level system for classifying punishable acts – 
‘Verbrechen’ (serious offences) and ‘Vergehen’ (lesser offences) – under 
Paragraph 12 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code): 
‘Serious offences and lesser offences 
(1) Serious offences are unlawful acts punishable by a term of imprisonment of 
a minimum of one year. 
(2) Lesser offences are unlawful acts punishable by a term of imprisonment of 
less than the minimum or a fine.’ 
36. Belgian law introduces a three-level system for classifying punishable acts: 
‘contraventions’ (infringements), ‘délits’ (lesser offences) and ‘crimes’ (serious 
offences) (Article 1 of the code pénal (Criminal Code)): 
‘Article 1: An offence punishable by law by a penalty imposed for serious offences 
is a serious offence. 
An offence punishable by law by a penalty imposed for lesser offences is a lesser 
offence. 
An offence punishable by law by a penalty imposed for a summary offence is an 
infringement.’ 
 
1  Emphasis added by translator. 
SMILIEV 
 
9 
37. Bulgarian law has introduced a two-level system for classifying punishable 
acts: 
37.1. criminal offences; and 
37.2. administrative offences. 
38. Administrative offences are not generally included in the criminal record 
and should therefore not be regarded as ‘punishable acts’ within the meaning of 
Article 2(a) of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA [Translator’s note: in its 
Bulgarian-language version]. 
39. However, in accordance with Article 40(1) of Regulation No 8 of 
26 February 2008 …, the criminal record lists not only convictions for criminal 
offences, but also administrative penalties imposed pursuant to Article 78a of the 
NK. Under the procedure laid down in Article 78a of the NK, the offender is 
found guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code, but he or she is released from 
criminal liability and an administrative penalty is imposed; the effects of that 
penalty differ from those affecting persons convicted of a criminal offence. 
40. A further category was introduced by the Bulgarian legislature: criminal 
offences of a general and private nature. Under Article 247 of the NPK, offences 
of a general nature are those … in respect of which the proceedings are initiated 
by a public prosecutor, and offences of a private nature are those in respect of 
which the public proceedings are initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by 
the victim before the court (in such cases, the victim plays the prosecutorial role). 
41. In those circumstances, first of all, it is not possible on the basis of the 
information provided by ECRIS to determine the category of punishable acts, 
under the classification in German law and in Belgian law, into which the acts 
covered by the previous convictions fall. 
42. Consequently, it is impossible to determine whether the acts in respect of 
which the defendant has been convicted by the foreign courts must be treated in 
the context of the recognition of judgments: as administrative offences or as 
criminal offences in the light of Bulgarian law. If they are treated as criminal 
offences, it is not possible to determine whether they are to be treated as criminal 
offences of a general or private nature. 
43. If the criminal offences entered in the records in ECRIS are regarded as 
having an effect equivalent to the acts listed in ECRIS under Bulgarian law, the 
court will be obliged to take the view that the convictions handed down by the 
Belgian … and German courts cannot constitute administrative offences because 
the latter offences cannot be entered in the criminal record in Bulgarian law. It 
must therefore be assumed that they constitute, in the light of the law of the court 
adjudicating on the merits (here: Bulgarian law), either criminal offences or 
decisions releasing the person concerned from criminal liability for the purposes 
of Article 78a of the NK (see paragraph 39). However, since convictions are not 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 4. 2024 – CASE C-263/24 – 1 
 
10  
recorded … in ECRIS as decisions exempting the person concerned from criminal 
liability (parameter ‘S’ in Annex ‘B’ to repealed Council Decision 
2009/316/JHA), it must therefore be concluded that they are convictions for 
criminal offences. Since there is no victim in such categories of criminal offences, 
it may be assumed that they are offences of a general nature, which precludes the 
application of Articles 66 and 78a of the [Bulgarian] Criminal Code to determine 
the penalty in the case pending before the referring court. 
44. However, if the view is taken that the court is not obliged to take the view 
that the convictions included in ECRIS are equivalent to the convictions included 
in the Bulgarian criminal record, an additional question must be put to the central 
authority in order to obtain further clarifications: 
44.1. the existence of various categories of criminal offences that must be entered 
in the criminal record of the Member State in which the judgment is given 
(perhaps the criteria to distinguish between such categories – sentence, person 
who instituted the criminal proceedings, possibilities of the effects of the sentence 
imposed being set aside etc.); 
44.2. … into which category do the previous convictions recorded in ECRIS fall. 
45. The court must thus determine to which categories of punishable acts under 
national law the punishable acts for which the defendant has been convicted by 
foreign courts correspond. This is an extremely complex assessment because there 
are no fixed criteria for making that assessment and the recognition of the 
convictions handed down will be determined on a case-by-case basis according to 
the individual analysis of the court. 
46. In the present case, in the context of that assessment, the court may conclude 
that the sentences imposed by the foreign courts are convictions for administrative 
offences and not recognise them at all pursuant to Article 66 and Article 78a of 
the NK. 
47. … 
48. … 
49. … 
50. […: comment concerning the fact that the prosecution and the defence make 
no observations on the matter]. 
V. Must account be taken of the convictions handed down by foreign courts if 
the act does not constitute an offence in both countries? 
51. Article 8(2) of the NK allows account to be taken of a conviction handed 
down in another Member State of the European Union only in respect of acts 
SMILIEV 
 
11 
constituting a criminal offence within the meaning of the Bulgarian Criminal 
Code. 
52. In accordance with recital 6 of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, the 
court is not obliged to take account of the conviction where a national conviction 
would not have been possible regarding the act for which the previous conviction 
had been imposed. 
53. This would mean that account would be taken only of: 
53.1. the conviction handed down by the German court, because it corresponds to 
a conviction for the criminal offence under Article 343c of the NK; 
53.2. the part of the conviction handed down by the Belgian court concerning the 
driving of an unregistered vehicle (see paragraph 12.2), because it corresponds to 
a conviction for the criminal offence under Article 345 of the NK. 
54. The other acts are not punishable as criminal offences under Bulgarian law. 
The question is of even greater significance as the Belgian conviction includes a 
custodial sentence for driving a vehicle that has not undergone roadworthiness 
testing (see paragraph 12.4). If the effect of that conviction were recognised, it 
would be impossible to impose a suspended sentence pursuant to Article 66 of the 
NK for the offence at issue. 
55. … 
56. … 
57. … 
58. […: comment noting the arguments of the prosecution and of the defence 
that the effects of foreign convictions can be recognised only if the resulting [sic] 
acts are punishable under Bulgarian law]. 
Specific questions referred 
I. Are Article 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 
24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the 
European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings in conjunction 
with Article 2(a) of Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 
26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of 
information extracted from the criminal record between Member States to be 
interpreted as meaning that taking account of previous convictions handed 
down against the same person in other Member States means that the court 
before which new criminal proceedings are brought against the same person 
(the executing court) is obliged to take the view that the previous convictions 
recorded in the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) 
and handed down in other Member States concern the same categories of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 4. 2024 – CASE C-263/24 – 1 
 
12  
punishable acts, which are classified in national law according to the danger 
to the public which they pose and are subject to entry in the criminal record 
of the State of the executing court? Where there are several categories of 
punishable acts, which are subject to entry in the criminal record under the 
national law of the executing court, the legal consequences of which in case of 
conviction are different, does it fall to the national court before which 
criminal proceedings are brought against a particular person to assess in 
each individual case into which category, under the national classification, 
the acts which gave rise to the previous convictions handed down in other 
Member States fall? In which cases must such an assessment be made? 
II. Is Article 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA to be 
interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation under which a 
court is obliged to disregard the previous convictions handed down in 
another Member State of the European Union in respect of acts which do not 
constitute criminal offences under the national law of the executing court? 
Position of the referring court 
VI. The first question 
59. In the referring court’s view, it should be recalled that, under Article 2(a) 
of … Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA, ‘conviction’ means any final decision 
of a criminal court against a natural person in respect of a criminal offence, to the 
extent these decisions are entered in the criminal record of the convicting Member 
State. Under Article 3(1) of … Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, each Member 
State is to ensure that in the course of criminal proceedings against a person, 
previous convictions handed down against the same person for different facts in 
other Member States, in respect of which information has been obtained under 
applicable instruments on mutual legal assistance or on the exchange of 
information extracted from criminal records, are taken into account to the extent 
previous national convictions are taken into account, and that equivalent legal 
effects are attached to them as to previous national convictions, in accordance 
with national law. 
60. The applicable instrument as regards the exchange of information from 
criminal records in this case is that referred to in Article 1(c) of … Framework 
Decision 2009/315/JHA: a decentralised, computerised system of exchange of 
information on convictions based on the criminal records databases of each 
Member State – the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). 
61. The purpose of creating ECRIS was therefore to standardise the information 
on individuals’ criminal records and to give the same legal effects to the 
convictions recorded in the different Member States. For that reason, the acts 
recorded in the system by a Member State should be treated with the same degree 
of seriousness by any other Member State (subject to the considerations set out 
below – see paragraph 68). 
SMILIEV 
 
13 
62. It is established that EU countries provide for different categories of acts 
deemed by law to be punishable acts. Determining the groups of acts which, under 
the national classification, will be included in the criminal record is a matter of 
national law. However, it is likewise indisputable that serious punishable acts are 
entered in the criminal records and that the differences between [national] laws 
arise from the inclusion or exclusion of less serious punishable acts in the records. 
In any event, the view must be taken that, by entering certain groups of acts in the 
criminal record, the legislature considers that they pose a sufficiently significant 
public danger for the Member State concerned, an assessment which must be 
accepted by the other Member States. 
63. The obligation laid down in Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 
2008/675/JHA in fact requires that foreign decisions which another Member State 
has decided to include in its criminal records are recognised. That obligation 
means that those decisions must be taken into account in the same way as 
provided for in national legislation as regards the effects of the national 
convictions entered in the national criminal record. 
64. Conversely, even if the foreign legislature has excluded a certain category of 
acts from the ambit of its records, the national court is not required to take the 
view that the acts in that category constitute acts excluded by the national 
legislature [Translator’s note: likely meaning of the sentence, original unclear]. 
65. In accordance with that interpretation of the provision, the view should be 
taken, for example, that the convictions handed down by the German and Belgian 
courts (referred to above) do not concern administrative offences within the 
meaning of Bulgarian law (since such offences are not entered in the Bulgarian 
criminal record – see paragraph 43). 
66. Where national law recognises several categories of acts which must be 
entered in the criminal record, the national court only has to determine the group 
of acts, under the national classification, into which the foreign convictions fall (if 
they have different legal consequences and if this is relevant to the case). That 
determination will be made on the basis of the information recorded in ECRIS. 
Only if that information is insufficient can use be made of other instruments of 
legal assistance applicable within the EU. 
67. Here, such supplementary information must be deemed unnecessary (see 
paragraph 43). 
VIII. The second question 
68. In the referring court’s view, account should be taken of recital 11 of … 
Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA, which mentions respect for the principle of 
subsidiarity as set out in Article 2 TFEU and Article 5 TEU. According to recital 6 
of that framework decision, there is no obligation to take into account such 
previous convictions, for example, where a national conviction would not have 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 4. 2024 – CASE C-263/24 – 1 
 
14  
been possible regarding the act for which the previous conviction had been 
imposed. 
69. In accordance with the Framework Decision, the national legislature 
amended (DV No 33 of 2011, in force since 27 May 2011) Article 8(2) of the NK 
by providing that a final conviction handed down in another Member State of the 
European Union in respect of an act which constitutes an offence under the 
Bulgarian Criminal Code is to be taken into account in any criminal proceedings 
instituted against the same person in the Republic of Bulgaria. 
70. In those circumstances, the view must be taken that there is no conflict 
between Article 8(2) of the NK and Article 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 
2008/675/JHA. 
71. That solution supplements the arguments put forward in connection with the 
previous question: namely, the entry of the act in the criminal record of another 
Member State and, at the same time, the fact that criminal liability attaches to the 
same act in both that other Member State and in the State of the executing court 
create additional safeguards that the defendant will not be in a worse situation – as 
a result of a more severe penalty – than if he or she had been convicted for the 
same act by the national court. 
72. In addition, this will avoid another problem related to determining an overall 
sentence for the convictions handed down in different Member States. 
73. In accordance with points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 
21 September 2017, Beshkov (C-171/16, EU:C:2017:710): 
‘1. Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking 
account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course 
of new criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable 
to a national procedure that is concerned with the imposition, for the purposes of 
execution, of an overall custodial sentence that takes into account the sentence 
imposed on that person by a national court and also that imposed following a 
previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State against the 
same person for different facts. 
2. Framework Decision 2008/675 must be interpreted as precluding the 
possibility that it should be a prerequisite of account being taken, in a Member 
State, of a previous conviction handed down by a court of another Member State 
that a national procedure for recognition of that conviction by the courts with 
jurisdiction in the former State, such as that laid down in Articles 463 to 466 of 
the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of criminal Procedure), be 
implemented.’ 
74. Thus, in principle, in the context of a procedure to determine an overall 
sentence, the sentence handed down in another Member State should be applied. 
SMILIEV 
 
15 
This could lead to the conviction handed down by the foreign court being 
executed without it being recognised pursuant to Articles 463 to 466 of the NPK. 
75. If the conviction handed down by the foreign court concerns an act which is 
not illegal under the national law, this will ultimately mean, in practice, executing 
a conviction for an act which is not prosecuted in the executing State. 
76. That last point is a further argument in favour of the compatibility of 
Article 8(2) of the NK with Article 3(1) of Council Framework Decision 
2008/675/JHA. 
Summary of the facts and circumstances justifying the need for the reference 
to be examined under the expedited procedure 
77. In the case pending before the referring court, the prosecutions were brought 
under an expedited procedure (Section 25 of the NPK). In the context of that 
procedure, procedural law lays down shorter deadlines for completion of 
procedural acts, for instance: 
77.1. the case is listed for a public hearing within seven days of its receipt 
(Article 358(1) of the NPK); 
77.2. the case is heard and adjudicated on, if possible, in a single hearing and the 
conviction is handed down immediately, together with a statement of grounds; 
where the case raises complex matters of fact and of law, the statement of grounds 
may prepared after the conviction is handed down, but no later than seven days 
thereafter (Article 359 of the NPK). 
78. As things currently stand, the procedure has been significantly delayed as a 
result of the referral of the case for further examination. This is prejudicial to the 
defendant’s rights. 
79. This court therefore takes the view that the request for a preliminary 
ruling should be dealt with under the expedited procedure provided for in 
Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. 
… 
1. …