Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:671
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Anonymised version 
Translation C-312/24 – 1 
Case C-312/24 [Darashev]i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
29 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 January 2024 
Applicant: 
CL 
Defendant: 
Prokuratura na Republika Balgaria 
  
ORDER 
[…] 
SOFIYSKI RAYONEN SAD, GRAZHDANSKO OTDELENIE (Sofia District 
Court, Civil Division), […] in open court on 30 January 2024 […], 
[…] 
Civil case No 20211110120709, […] 
took the following matters into consideration in reaching its decision: 
 
i The name of this case is fictitious and not the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 1. 2024 – CASE C-312/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
These are proceedings under Article 276(1) TFEU and Chapter 55 of the 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (GPK – Code of Civil Procedure) (requests 
for a preliminary ruling) 
The proceedings were instituted following an action brought by CL, […], 
Kazichene village, […] against the PROKURATURA NA REPUBLIKA 
BALGARIA (PRB – Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria) 
seeking an order requiring the defendant, on the basis of Article 2(1), points 2 and 
3, of the Zakon za otgovornostta na darzhavata i obshtinite za vredi (Law on 
the liability of the State and municipalities for damage, short form Law on 
State liability, or ZODOV) to pay a sum of BGN 6 000.00 as compensation for 
non-material damage resulting from actions undertaken against the applicant in 
the preliminary investigative proceedings […] and their aftermath. 
In the application it is asserted that the applicant had the status of a suspect but 
had not been formally charged (in the original: ne e bil privlechen kato 
obvinyaem). According to the application, he was informed that he was ‘a person 
with an unexplained role’. He claims that he was detained for a period of 
24 hours. At a later date, he states, the investigative proceedings were stayed, as 
the offender had not been identified (Article 244(1)(2) of the Nakazatelno-
protsesualen kodeks (NPK – Code of Criminal Procedure). In the period following 
the final abandonment of the investigative proceedings, he asserts, he was unable 
to advance in the official hierarchy at the Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti 
(MVR – Ministry of the Interior) because he had been a suspect. He claims to 
have suffered non-material damage as a result of the following actions: (1) he had 
been detained for 24 hours; (2) his arrest had taken place in front of all his 
colleagues and staff in his place of work; (3) he had not been informed as to why 
investigativee proceedings had been initiated or been told that he could meet a 
lawyer or contact his family, and his telephone had been seized; (4) investigative 
measures had been taken against him, comprising a body search (in the original: 
obisk), a house search (in the original: pretarsvane) and an identification 
procedure, although his status had not been that of a person charged with an 
offence and he had had no previous convictions; (5) as an employee of the 
Ministry of the Interior (MVR), he had been denied appointment to any more 
senior post in the period from 2016 to 2022 because he had had the status of a 
suspect in the aforementioned investigative proceedings. As regards the actions 
depicted in points 1 to 4, he maintains that the damage occurred during the seven-
month period following the investigative measures taken against him in the 
criminal proceedings referred to above. In particular, he seeks his removal from 
the database in which he appears as a suspect. 
The defendant, the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF 
BULGARIA, contests the application in its entirety, both in principle and relation 
to the amount. 
The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the way in which information on 
persons having the status of suspects in criminal proceedings should be processed 
DARASHEV 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
(collected, stored and erased) where the investigating authorities are part of the 
organisational structure of the body for which the suspect works. The request 
concerns the information that the employer may collect, store or erase when other 
of its organisational entities conduct investigative measures against its employee. 
By requesting a preliminary ruling, the referring court seeks to clarify the 
interpretation of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in cases where the information gathered 
is in the personal file of an employee working in an organisational entity of an 
employer, that precise information having been gathered in the context of criminal 
proceedings conducted by another organisational entity of the employer, where 
that other entity is the investigating authority in the criminal proceedings. May an 
employer with organisational entities which undertake investigative actions deny 
promotion to an employee on the sole ground that he is a suspect in pending 
criminal proceedings, the investigative actions for which are undertaken by an 
entity of the employer other than that in which the employee works? May an 
employer with a dedicated directorate conducting investigative measures in 
criminal proceedings deny promotion to an employee working in another 
directorate on the ground that the employee is a suspect or has the status of an 
accused or defendant in criminal proceedings conducted by another organisational 
entity of the employer? 
THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE 
Applicant: CL, […], Kazichene village, […] 
Defendant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF 
BULGARIA (PRB), City of Sofia […] 
FACTS OF THE CASE 
It is common ground between the parties that, on 1 March 2016, investigative 
proceedings were initiated […] into a crime that had been committed, namely 
robbery in complicity with other persons, an offence defined in Article 198(1) of 
the Nakazatelen kodeks (NK – Bulgarian Criminal Code), read in conjunction 
with Article 20(2) and with Article 20(1) thereof. The investigative proceedings 
were conducted against an unknown offender. It is common ground between the 
parties that, in the period from 2012 to 2023, the applicant held various posts as a 
police officer within the Ministry of the Interior (MVR) in two directorates, 
namely the Directorate General for the Security Police and the Directorate 
General for the National Police. 
On 17 May 2016, a general meeting was held of all the police officers who were 
present at the time in the unit where the applicant works. The head of department, 
a representative of the Internal Security Directorate of the MVR, a public 
prosecutor from the Sofiyska gradska prokuratura (SGP – Public Prosecutor’s 
Office of the City of Sofia) and an investigator reportedly appeared at that general 
meeting. It is established that, at that meeting, the applicant was publicly arrested 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 1. 2024 – CASE C-312/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
in front of everyone and was required to surrender his service badge, his weapon 
and his service identity card. 
It is common ground that the applicant was arrested on 17 May 2016 and detained 
for a period of 24 hours. A warrant was issued by the Internal Security Directorate 
of the MVR for his arrest. The arrest warrant was issued on the basis of 
Article 72(1)(1) of the Zakon za ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti (ZMVR – 
Law on the Ministry of the Interior), which is headed ‘Person about whom there is 
information that he has committed an offence’. The arrest warrant indicated that 
the person was to be arrested because, on 1 March 2016, he had, by complicity, 
removed movable items belonging to another person with intent to appropriate 
those items forcibly, which constituted a criminal offence within the meaning of 
Article 198(1) of the NK, read in conjunction with Article 20(2) and with 
Article 20(1) thereof. 
There is no doubt that the applicant was released after those 24 hours. It is 
common ground that the applicant was not formally charged. He was not indicted. 
The applicant was searched in the course of investigative actions in the context of 
a search and seizure operation. The home where the applicant lived was searched. 
The applicant took part in an identification procedure, in which the victims did not 
identify him as an offender. As a suspect, the applicant was fingerprinted. It was 
established that no traces of him were to be found on the victims’ items. It is 
common ground that the search and seizure operation was carried out with the 
prior authorisation of a court. The parties agree that the investigative proceedings 
were stayed because the offender could not be identified. 
In the proceedings, it was noted that the applicant resumed his official duties 
within the MVR system. The applicant took part in selection procedures for 
promotion to other posts in other units, divisions and directorates within the MVR 
system. The main reason why he was not appointed to another post is that he had 
been arrested as a suspect in the abovementioned investigative proceedings. It is 
recorded in the applicant’s personal file and in the MVR archives that the 
applicant was arrested and that investigative measures (body search, house search, 
seizure and identification procedure) were taken against him as a suspect. The 
reason why the applicant was not promoted or transferred to other posts was his 
connection as a suspect with the criminal offence referred to in Article 198(1) NK, 
that is to say robbery, in the abovementioned investigative proceedings. 
He claims that he suffered non-material damage as a result of having been arrested 
in front of his colleagues, consisting in the humiliation, for a long-serving 
employee of the MVR, of being arrested for an offence which there was no proof 
of his having committed. In his view, he suffered damage because no information 
about his arrest was communicated to him – no lawyer, no telephone conversation 
with his family and no reason given for his arrest. That arrest, in his view, 
constituted an obstacle to his career advancement and professional development. 
He asserts that his employer, which made the arrest, keeps a database on those 
investigative proceedings and refuses to remove or erase it. In any case, the 
DARASHEV 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
applicant states, he was referred to by name as a suspect during the investigative 
proceedings, which barred him from any further promotion. 
CASE-LAW OF THE VARHOVEN KASATSIONEN SAD NA 
REPUBLIKA BALGARIA (VKS – SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION 
OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA) 
According to the case-law of the VKS, a person who has been linked with a 
criminal offence but not formally charged is entitled to compensation if the 
criminal proceedings are abandoned. The compensation is payable in accordance 
with the ZODOV. The person may also claim damages for the period prior to 
being named as a suspect if, at the time when criminal proceedings were initiated 
against an unknown offender, he or she was the only person who could have 
committed the offence. The defendant in these proceedings is the Public 
Prosecutor’s Office, as they are investigative proceedings. 
REASONS WHY THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT THE REQUEST FOR 
A PRELIMINARY RULING IS RELEVANT TO THE CORRECT 
OUTCOME OF THE CASE 
The legal concept of a suspect in criminal proceedings does not feature in the 
Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure (NPK). Pursuant to the judgment in Case 
C-209/22, the suspect enjoys rights under 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, subject to the proviso that such access to a lawyer is only necessary if the 
person concerned is able to exercise his or her rights of defence practically and 
effectively. 
The applicant in the present proceedings had the full status of a suspect during the 
aforementioned investigative proceedings, which is common ground between the 
parties. Following the measures of inquiry, however, he was not formally charged, 
and the criminal proceedings against him have been stayed since 2016, as the 
offender has not been identified. 
The applicant claims that he is entitled to compensation for his arrest and 
detention if he was suspected of involvement in a criminal offence but such 
involvement was not proved. He is claiming damages for the following reasons: 1. 
his arrest took place in front of his colleagues at his place of work; 2. his status as 
a suspect has been an obstacle to his career advancement in the organisational 
system of the MVR; 3. he was denied access to information during his arrest and 
detention – a conversation with his family and with his lawyer to find out why he 
had been arrested. 
The MVR is a single administrative structure which is responsible for the 
maintenance of public order. It is composed of several directorates, the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 1. 2024 – CASE C-312/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
Directorate-General for the National Police and the Directorate-General for the 
Security Police being responsible for measures to protect public order. 
At the same time, employees of the MVR may also be named as suspects, charged 
with offences and prosecuted. Investigations concerning MVR employees are 
conducted by the Internal Security Directorate, irrespective of the offence. The 
Internal Security Directorate undertakes actions for the investigation of offences 
where there is information indicating that they were committed by employees of 
the MVR. An investigating police officer from the Internal Security Directorate 
may open investigative proceedings against an employee of another directorate of 
the MVR. The staff of the Internal Security Directorate carry out investigative 
measures – searches, seizure, examination of witnesses, formal charging, 
disclosure of investigation records, etc. 
As a single administrative authority, the MVR is the employer of all staff working 
for that ministry. Each directorate holds information on its employees and stores it 
in their personal file. When an employee takes part in selection procedures for 
promotions and transfers, his personal file is requested, and information is sought 
on the manner in which the employee has performed his duties, on whether he has 
ever been suspected of, charged with or put on trial for a criminal offence and on 
whether he has ever contravened staff regulations or committed a breach of public 
order. 
The Internal Security Directorate, on the other hand, is an organisational entity of 
the MVR which undertakes actions for the investigation of offences which are 
believed to have been committed by employees of the MVR. Information obtained 
during the investigations is also recorded in the personal file. An internal review is 
conducted, the result of which is also placed on the personal file. 
In this context, a problem arises with regard to the processing, storage and use of 
information obtained by an MVR directorate acting as the investigating authority 
in the context of criminal proceedings and made available to another MVR 
directorate in which the suspect, accused or defendant is employed. It is not clear 
to the court whether a directorate of the MVR acting as the investigating authority 
may insert, proprio motu, information which it has obtained into the personal file 
of an employee performing the duties of a police officer in another directorate of 
the MVR. How is that information stored and for how long, and can it constitute 
an obstacle to promotion of the employee? Problems relating to the processing and 
storage of investigation data collected by the MVR are addressed in Cases 
C-205/21 and C-118/22. 
In the present case, the MVR acted not only as the employer, through the 
directorates in which the applicant performed his duties, but also as the 
investigating authority through the Internal Security Directorate, which conducted 
investigations into offences committed by MVR employees. 
DARASHEV 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
Is it proportionate for the MVR, in its capacity as an employer, to use and rely on 
information about an employee which it has received from another division or 
directorate of the MVR which was performing the duties of an investigating 
authority? Is the objective of detection and prevention of criminal offences by an 
organisational entity of the MVR compatible with the option for the employer to 
deny an employee promotion on the sole ground that the employee was suspected 
of having committed a criminal offence, the prosecution of the case having been 
stayed because the identity of the offender had not been established? 
It should be noted that it is not clear to the court whether the GDPR is applicable 
in cases such as the present one, in which some of the directorates within the same 
organisational structure perform the function of an employer and another performs 
the functions of an investigating authority in criminal proceedings. 
Article 4(1) of the GDPR defines what personal data means. In the proceedings, it 
is common ground that the MVR, as the employer, stores information indicating 
that the applicant was suspected and was arrested during the investigative 
proceedings relating to the offence of robbery in complicity. The question arises 
whether that storage and addition to the suspect’s personal file constitutes data 
processing within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the GDPR or whether the 
personal file is a filing system within the meaning of Article 4(6). Another 
question facing the referring court is whether the storage of data such as that at 
issue in the present case falls within the scope of Article 9(2)(b) of the GDPR. 
The court is well aware that officers who maintain public order (persons working 
in the MVR) should satisfy more stringent moral and ethical criteria than other 
categories of workers or employees. These persons must not do anything which 
might result in their being convicted, put on trial, charged or suspected, because 
that would defeat the purpose of their professional activity, namely to maintain 
order in the State and to avert, detect and prevent criminal offences and 
infringements of the law. They are, however, to be presumed innocent until 
proved guilty. The court wonders whether the employer can deny an employee 
promotion on the sole ground that he has been suspected of, charged with or put 
on trial for a criminal offence in view of the more stringent ethical criteria which 
that category of employees must satisfy. Can an employer invoke the fact that its 
employee has been suspected of, charged with or put on trial for a criminal 
offence to put an end to his career advancement after the criminal proceedings 
against him have been stayed? It is not clear whether the collection and processing 
in an employee’s personal file of data connected with his status as a suspect, 
accused or defendant are manifestly proportionate to the standards expected of 
that category of employees. This is because only a final conviction constitutes a 
ground for termination of the employment and service relationship with the 
employee. 
At the same time, recitals 65 and 66 and Article 17 of the GDPR have introduced 
the principle of the right to be forgotten. For that reason, it is unclear whether the 
principle of the right to be forgotten set out in Article 17(1)(a) of the GDPR must 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 1. 2024 – CASE C-312/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
be interpreted as meaning that erasure from an employee’s personal file is 
required for any data which have been collected by another organisational entity 
of the employer performing the functions of an investigating authority and which 
relate to the employee having been suspected of, charged with or put on trial for a 
criminal offence. 
It is not clear to the court whether unlawful processing within the meaning of 
Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR is to be understood as covering the processing and 
storage of data by an organisational entity of the employer on account of suspicion 
that its employee has committed a criminal offence in cases where that 
information was obtained, collected and stored by another organisational entity of 
the employer in its capacity as a prosecuting authority. 
In accordance with recital 19 and Article 2(2)(d) of the GDPR, the processing and 
storage of personal data in criminal proceedings are regulated in Directive (EU) 
2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by 
competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or 
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the 
free movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 
2008/977/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. 
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns information stored by the employer 
in the employee’s file and obtained from another directorate of the employer 
which, in relation to police officers (persons working in the organisational 
structure of the MVR), was acting as an investigating authority in the context of 
criminal proceedings. In the court’s view, data obtained in the context of criminal 
investigations against an employee fall simultaneously within the scope of the 
GDPR, Directive 2016/680 and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 
2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation. 
Article 10 of Directive 2016/680 introduces special categories of personal data. 
For the referring court, the question arises whether the storage of data in the 
personal file of MVR employees in the context of criminal proceedings brought 
against them is proportionate, given the more stringent moral criteria required for 
the practice of their profession. Can the employer use data obtained in the context 
of investigations proprio motu if one of its other organisational entities undertakes 
investigative actions? The question arises whether ‘personal data’ and 
‘processing’ within the meaning of Directive 2016/680 must be interpreted as 
including the activities at issue in the present case. The question for the court is 
whether Article 9(1) of Directive 2016/680 must be interpreted as allowing an 
employer to collect and store information relating to an employee in a directorate 
who has been suspected of, charged with or tried for a criminal offence if the 
employer has collected that information through another of its directorates which 
is an investigating authority. 
DARASHEV 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
The applicant applied to take part in selection procedures for promotion and 
transfer and was ranked in the first places. Because of his status as a suspect, 
however, he was not appointed to the police posts for which he attained the 
highest ranking. In that context, the court asks whether the storage of data by one 
and the same organisational structure (such as the MVR, in which some of the 
directorates have the function of an employer and a dedicated directorate has the 
function of an investigating authority) constitutes a form of discrimination 
within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 
2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation in cases where the information concerns an employee’s status in 
criminal proceedings and is collected by a directorate in the same organisational 
structure which has the role of an investigating authority. Does equal treatment 
therefore also encompass prohibition of the storage of data relating to an 
employee who has been a suspect but against whom the criminal proceedings have 
been abandoned? 
In the light of the foregoing considerations, Article 631(1) of the GPK, read in 
conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, requires a stay of 
proceedings until the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the 
questions of interpretation set out in the operative part of the order. 
On those grounds, the COURT 
MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 
The following questions are REFERRED to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU and Article 629 of the 
GPK: 
Is Article 2(1) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that data processing 
includes activities within one and the same organisational structure, in which 
some of its directorates perform the duties of an employer while one other 
directorate has the function of an investigating authority in criminal proceedings 
against employees of the other directorates? If the answer is in the affirmative: 
1. Is the expression ‘processing of personal data’ in Article 4(2) of the GDPR 
to be interpreted as covering an activity in the context of which information 
concerning a particular employee which has been obtained by the employer, 
in its capacity as the investigating authority, through one of its directorates is 
added to that employee’s personal file? 
2. Is the expression ‘filing system’ in Article 4(6) of the GDPR to be 
interpreted as covering the personal file of an employee or worker working 
in a directorate of the employer where the information has been collected by 
another directorate of the employer which has the status of an investigating 
authority? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 1. 2024 – CASE C-312/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
3. Is Article 9(2)(b) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that an 
organisational entity of an employer may gather and store data indicating 
that a particular employee was suspected of, charged with or put on trial for 
a criminal offence in criminal proceedings if that information was collected 
by another organisational entity of the employer which has the status of an 
investigating authority? 
4. Is the ‘right to be forgotten’ within the meaning of Article 17(1)(a) of the 
GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to erase 
from the personal file of the employee any data which it has collected and 
stored through another of its directorates, which has the status of a public 
authority for the purposes of investigating its employees, and which indicate 
that the employee: 
4.1. is suspected of, charged with or on trial for a criminal offence in 
pending criminal proceedings, or 
4.2. was suspected of, charged with or put on trial for a criminal offence for 
which criminal proceedings were stayed or abandoned? 
5. Must personal data ‘unlawfully processed’ within the meaning of 
Article 17(1)(d) of the GDPR be interpreted as including data which the 
employer has received, collected and stored through another of its 
organisational entities which performs investigative functions in criminal 
proceedings against employees of other organisational entities of the 
employer, where those data are recorded in the personal file and relate to the 
fact that the employee has been suspected of, charged with or on trial for a 
criminal offence, that is to say: 
5.1. is suspected of, charged with or on trial for a criminal offence in 
pending criminal proceedings, or 
5.2. was suspected of, charged with or on trial for a criminal offence for 
which criminal proceedings were stayed or abandoned? 
6. Are ‘personal data’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive (EU) 
2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 
on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of 
personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, 
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution 
of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data and repealing 
Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, read in conjunction with 
Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to 
be interpreted as meaning data which have been obtained, collected and 
stored by the employer through one of its organisational entities which 
performs the functions of an investigating authority in criminal proceedings 
against an employee serving in another organisational entity of the 
employer? 
DARASHEV 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
7. Is ‘processing’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive (EU) 
2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 
on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of 
personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, 
investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution 
of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data and repealing 
Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, read in conjunction with 
Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to 
be interpreted as meaning that it encompasses an activity consisting in the 
employer storing in the employee’s personal file data which the employer 
has obtained, collected and stored through one of its organisational entities 
which performs the duties of an investigating authority in criminal 
proceedings against any of the employer’s employees serving in another of 
its organisational entities? 
8. Is Article 9(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with 
regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the 
purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal 
offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of 
such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, read 
in conjunction with Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits the employer 
to collect and store information on an employee who is suspected of, 
charged with or on trial for a criminal offence in cases where the employer 
collected that information through another of its organisational entities 
which has the status of an investigating authority in criminal proceedings 
against that employee? 
9. Is Article 16(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons 
with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for 
the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of 
criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free 
movement of such data and repealing Council Framework Decision 
2008/977/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 52 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning 
that the employer must erase from the employee’s personal file any data 
which the employer has collected and stored through another of its 
organisational entities which has the status of an investigating authority in 
criminal proceedings against that employee and which relate to the fact that 
the employee: 
9.1. is suspected of, charged with or on trial for a criminal offence in 
pending criminal proceedings, or 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 30. 1. 2024 – CASE C-312/24 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
9.2. was suspected of, charged with or put on trial for a criminal offence for 
which criminal proceedings were stayed or abandoned? 
10. Is Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and 
occupation to be interpreted as not permitting an employer, one of whose 
organisational entities undertakes investigative actions against an employee 
of another organisational entity, to deny an employee promotion on the sole 
ground that he: 
10.1. is suspected of, charged with or on trial for a criminal offence in 
pending criminal proceedings, or 
10.2. was suspected of, charged with or put on trial for a criminal offence for 
which criminal proceedings were stayed or abandoned? 
The proceedings ARE STAYED […] 
[…]