Order — ECLI:EU:C:2024:931
Date: 2024-11-06
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-241/24 – 1 
Case C-241/24 [Tsenochev] i 
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: 
3 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Okrazhen sad Pleven (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 April 2024 
Parties to the criminal proceedings: 
Okrazhna prokuratura Pleven (Bulgaria) 
M.N.D. and Y.G.Ts 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The main proceedings concern two agreements made between the public 
prosecutor’s office and the defence lawyers of M.N.D. and Y.G.Ts. after 
completion of the pre-trial investigation. M.N.D. and Y.G.Ts. consented in writing 
to the agreements, pleading guilty therein to the commission of eight offences 
(participation in an organised crime group for the purpose of trafficking in human 
beings and seven other offences of trafficking in human beings) against a number 
of women. The offences were committed in Bulgaria and Germany between 2019 
and 2023. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Request concerning interpretation of EU law under Article 267 TFEU 
 
i The present case is designated by a fictitious name which does not correspond to the actual name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
2  
Questions referred 
1. Is the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with 
Article 2 and Article 4(2) and (3) TEU and Article 267 TFEU to be interpreted as 
meaning that it grants to the national court, which was duly seised concerning an 
agreement to settle the case at the pre-trial stage and has referred questions for a 
preliminary ruling on the effective protection of the rights conferred on victims of 
trafficking in human beings by Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in 
human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA, the power to disregard subsequent applications for the 
termination of the procedure that have been filed by the accused person and his 
defence lawyer, where the court has reason to believe that those applications 
constitute an abuse of rights under Article 54 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union, for the following reasons: 1. National law provides 
no opportunity for the seising of the court, to which an agreement has been 
submitted for approval, to be undone and for the procedure to be consequently 
terminated for that reason; 2. One of the accused and his defence lawyer have 
complained of failure to comply with the normal period of one week for 
termination of the procedure, a period which could not be complied with because 
of a request made by the referring court to the Konstitutsionen sad na Republika 
Bulgaria (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria), with the result that 
the ‘pre-trial detention’ was wrongly extended; 3. One of the accused and his 
defence lawyer have petitioned the President of the Court and the Minister of 
Justice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the judge on the grounds that 
the judge did not terminate the procedure within the usual time limit of one week; 
4. One of the accused has withdrawn his consent to the signed agreement ‘due to a 
lack of trust in the judge seised of the matter’ and has asked the President of the 
Court to hold the judge disciplinarily liable, to recuse him and to refer the criminal 
case to another judge; 5. The other judges who examined and approved the 
agreements of the 10 other accused persons in the same criminal proceedings did 
not raise the question of procedural law being incompatible with the requirements 
of effective protection for victims of trafficking in human beings? 
2. Are the provisions of Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human 
beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA, and Article 5 of the Charter, read in conjunction with the 
Explanations relating to the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that a victim of 
trafficking in human beings has to be involved in the penalty determination 
procedure, even in the event that an agreement to be approved by the court has 
been made during the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings? 
3. Is it of any relevance to the answer to Question 2 that the approval of the 
agreement depends on whether the material damage caused by the offence has 
already been compensated or guaranteed, given that, according to an interpretative 
decision binding on the court, only ‘offence-related damage’, that is to say, 
TSENOCHEV 
 
3 
damage attributable to the elements of the offence, but not ‘non-offence-related 
damage’, that is to say, loss of earnings suffered by victims of human trafficking, 
is to be taken into account? 
4. Is a national provision such as Article 381(2) of the Nakazatelno-
protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), which prohibits the settlement 
of criminal cases by means of agreement for serious and intentionally committed 
offences in certain chapters of the Criminal Code, including the offences in 
Section VIII ‘Unlawful acts of a sexual nature’, but not the offences of Section IX 
‘Trafficking in human beings’, compatible with the right to an effective remedy 
enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union? 
5. Are Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(4) of Directive 2011/36/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and 
combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing 
Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, to be interpreted as meaning that 
they require a national court seised of an agreement during the pre-trial stage of 
criminal proceedings to examine whether the agreed penalty (in the present case: 
two years’ imprisonment) is ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’, taking into 
account the number of individual instances of trafficking in human beings and the 
commission of the offences by a criminal organisation? 
6. If Question 5 is answered in the negative: Must the national court ensure the 
application of Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings 
and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA, by interpreting, in accordance with the principle that 
national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law and by way of 
derogation from settled case-law, the national law under which it may approve the 
agreement only if it ‘is not contrary to law or to accepted principles of morality’ 
as meaning that it may also examine whether the penalty imposed in the 
agreement (in the present case: two years’ imprisonment) is ‘effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive’, taking into account the number of individual 
instances of trafficking in human beings and the commission of the offences by a 
criminal organisation? 
7. How should the terms ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ within the 
meaning of Article 4(4) of Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human 
beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA, be interpreted and can two years’ imprisonment be 
regarded as being effective, proportionate and dissuasive where the offender has 
participated in a criminal organisation and has recruited a number of persons for 
the purposes of using them in other Member States, without their consent, for 
sexual exploitation, the offence having been committed through deception? In this 
regard, is the ‘maximum penalty of at least 10 years of imprisonment [where that 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
4  
offence]: … (b) … was committed within the framework of a criminal 
organisation within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA 
of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime’ provided for in 
Article 4(2)(b) to be interpreted as meaning that it applies to each individual act of 
trafficking in human beings relating to each individual victim or applies to the 
criminal activity overall which includes several acts of trafficking in human 
beings? 
Provisions of the Council of Europe and case-law of the European Court of 
Human Rights 
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (‘the Convention 
against Human Trafficking’) 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the 
ECHR’), Articles 2 to 6 and 13 
Judgments of the ECtHR of 26 July 2005, Siliadin v. France 
(CE:ECHR:2005:0726JUD007331601); of 7 January 2010, Rantsev v. Cyprus and 
Russia (CE:ECHR:2010:0107JUD002596504, paragraph 232); of 3 March 2015, 
S.Z. v. Bulgaria (CE:ECHR:2015:0303JUD002926312, paragraphs 57 and 58); of 
30 March 2017, Chowdury and Others v. Greece 
(CE:ECHR:2017:0330JUD002188415, paragraph 89); of 18 July 2019, T. I. and 
Others v. Greece (CE:ECHR:2019:0718JUD004031110); and of 28 November 
2023, Krachunova v. Bulgaria (CE:ECHR:2023:1128JUD001826918) 
EU legislation and case-law 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 79(1) 
and (2)(d), Article 83(1) 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), 
Articles 1, 5(3) and 47 
Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and 
protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA 
(OJ 2011 L 101, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/36’), Article 4(2) and (4) and Article 12(2) 
Judgments of 5 October 2010, Elchinov (C-173/09, EU:C:2010:581, 
paragraph 32); of 5 July 2016, Ognyanov (C-614/14, EU:C:2016:514, 
paragraph 26); of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion and Others 
(C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19, EU:C:2021:1034, 
paragraphs 220 and 221 and the case-law cited there); and of 22 February 2022, 
RS (Effects of the decisions of a constitutional court) (C-430/21, 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:99, paragraph 78) 
TSENOCHEV 
 
5 
National legislation 
Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, ‘the 
Constitution’), Article 4, Article 29(1), Article 56, Article 117(1), Article 121 (1) 
and (2), Article 122 
Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code, ‘the Criminal Code’), Article 23(1), 
Article 55(1)(1) and (3), Article 159a(1) and (2), Articles 159b to 159d and 
Section 6 of the Additional Provisions to the Act Amending and Supplementing 
the Criminal Code (DV 2013, No 84) 
Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘the Code of 
Criminal Procedure), Article 74(1), Article 75(1), Article 247c(1) to (4), 
Articles 253, 381, 382 and 384 
Brief summary of the facts and main procedure 
1 On 10 January 2024, the Okrazhna prokuratura Pleven (Public Prosecutor’s 
Office, Pleven, Bulgaria) submitted an agreement to the referring court (to the 
referring criminal chamber, to which the case had been allocated randomly by 
means of automated electronic scheduling for the distribution of cases), by means 
of which agreement the criminal case against M.N.D. was to be terminated at the 
pre-trial stage. In that agreement, M.N.D. pleaded guilty to the following eight 
offences: 
1) During the period from an unspecified date in April 2019 to 11 July 2023, he 
participated in an organised crime group (a structured association, established 
over a period of time, of eight persons acting in concert), which was active in the 
territories of Bulgaria and Germany and had formed, with the intention of self-
enrichment, for the purpose of committing offences in national territory and 
abroad as defined in Section IX (‘Trafficking in human beings’) of Chapter 2 of 
the Criminal Code (‘Offences against the integrity of the person’). For this 
offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment of between three 
and 10 years. 
2) Between late May and 2 June 2021, he recruited, in the town of Etropole 
(Bulgaria) and in the city of Berlin (Germany), with the involvement of others and 
implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in point 1, 
another person – R.M.B. – in order to use her in Germany, without her consent, 
for sexual exploitation. On 2 June 2021, they moved her from Etropole to Berlin, 
where they began to exploit her sexually without her consent, the offence having 
been committed through deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down 
a term of imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between 20 000 
and 100 000 lev [BGN], the court also being able to order the full or partial 
confiscation of the offender’s property. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
6  
3) Between early July and 16 July 2021, he recruited, in the town of S. 
(Bulgaria) and in Berlin, with the involvement of others and implementing a 
decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in point 1, another person – 
R.M.B. – in order to use her in Germany, without her consent, for sexual 
exploitation. On 16 July, they moved her from S. to Berlin, where they began to 
exploit her sexually without her consent, the offence having been committed 
through deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of 
imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 
and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of 
the offender’s property. 
4) Between August and 3 September 2021, he recruited, in the small town 
of … (Bulgaria) and in Berlin, with the involvement of others and implementing a 
decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in point 1, another person – 
N.G.A. – from the small town of …, in order to use her in Germany, without her 
consent, for sexual exploitation, and on 3 September 2021 they moved her from 
the small town of … to Berlin, where they began to exploit her sexually without 
her consent, the offence having been committed through deception. For this 
offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment of between five 
and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the court also being 
able to order the full or partial confiscation of the offender’s property. 
5) Between early April and 6 April 2019, he recruited, in the town of S. 
(Bulgaria) and in Berlin, implementing a decision made by the criminal 
organisation referred to in point 1, another person – M.H.N. – from the small town 
of …, in order to use her in Germany, without her consent, for sexual exploitation. 
On 6 April 2019, they moved her from S. to Berlin, where they began to exploit 
her sexually, without her consent, the offence having been committed through 
deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment 
of between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the 
court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of the offender’s 
property. 
6) Between 6 April 2019 and January 2023, he used another person – M.H.N. 
from the small town of …, victim of trafficking in human beings, for sexual 
exploitation in Berlin, implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation 
referred to in point 1. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of 
imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 
and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of 
the offender’s property. 
7) On an unspecified date in early 2021, he recruited in Berlin, with the 
involvement of a co-offender and implementing a decision made by the criminal 
organisation referred to in point 1, another person – S.Y.N. – from the small town 
of T. and began to use her in Germany, without her consent, for sexual 
exploitation. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of 
imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 
TSENOCHEV 
 
7 
and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of 
the offender’s property. 
8) During the period from an unspecified date in 2021 and April 2022, he used 
another person – S.Y.N. – from the town of T., victim of trafficking in human 
beings, for sexual exploitation in Berlin, implementing a decision made by the 
criminal organisation referred to in point 1. For this offence, the Criminal Code 
lays down a term of imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of 
between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or 
partial confiscation of the offender’s property. 
2 The competent public prosecutor and the defence lawyer of the accused person 
M.N.D. made a written agreement, in which the penalty for each of the eight 
offences in accordance with Article 55(1) of the Criminal Code was specified. 
Said provision provides that, where there are exceptional circumstances or a 
number of mitigating circumstances, the court may impose a penalty that is lower 
than the statutory minimum if the statutory minimum appears to be 
disproportionately high. In the present case, the agreement imposed terms of 
imprisonment of two years each, with the statutory minimum being five years’ 
imprisonment. In addition, it was agreed, pursuant to Article 23 of the Criminal 
Code, that the accused person M.N.D. would only be sentenced to a combined 
term of imprisonment of two years for the eight offences in total. Pursuant to 
Article 55(3) of the Criminal Code, the agreement does not impose a cumulative 
fine for any of the seven offences under the ‘Trafficking in human beings’ section. 
3 On 8 January 2024, the Okrazhna prokuratura Pleven (Public Prosecutor’s Office, 
Pleven, Bulgaria) submitted an agreement to the referring court (to the referring 
criminal chamber, to which the case had been allocated randomly by means of 
automated electronic scheduling for the distribution of cases), by means of which 
agreement the criminal case against Y.G.Ts was to be terminated at the pre-trial 
stage and in which agreement the accused pleaded guilty to the following eight 
offences: 
1) During the period from an unspecified date in April 2019 to 11 July 2023, he 
participated in an organised crime group (a structured association, established 
over a period of time, of eight persons acting in concert), which was active in the 
territories of Bulgaria and Germany and had formed, with the intention of self-
enrichment, for the purpose of committing offences in national territory and 
abroad as defined in Section IX (‘Trafficking in human beings’) of Chapter 2 of 
the Criminal Code (‘Offences against the integrity of the person’). For this 
offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment of between three 
and ten years. 
2) Between late May and 2 June 2021, he recruited, in the town of Etropole and 
in Berlin, with the involvement of others and implementing a decision made by 
the criminal organisation referred to in point 1, another person – R.M.B. – in order 
to use her in Germany, without her consent, for sexual exploitation. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
8  
On 2 June 2021, they moved her from Etropole to Berlin, where they began to 
exploit her sexually without her consent, the offence having been committed 
through deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of 
imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 
and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of 
the offender’s property. 
3) Between 20 April and the end of April 2021, he recruited in the city of 
Hamm (Germany), implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation 
referred to in point 1, another person – K.B.B. – from the city of Pleven 
(Bulgaria), in order to use her in Germany, without her consent, for sexual 
exploitation, and moved her from Hamm to Berlin, in order to use her for sexual 
exploitation, without her consent, the offence having been committed through 
deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment 
of between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the 
court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of the offender’s 
property. 
4) Between late April to 24 September 2021 he used another person – K.B.B. – 
from Pleven, victim of trafficking in human beings, for sexual exploitation in 
Berlin, implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in 
point 1. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment of 
between five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the 
court also being able to order the full or partial confiscation of the offender’s 
property. 
5) Between early May and 14 May 2021, he recruited in the town of S. 
(Bulgaria) and in Etropole, with the involvement of a co-offender and 
implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in point 1, 
another person – N.I.V. – in order to use her in Germany, without her consent, for 
sexual exploitation. On 14 May 2021, they moved her from Etropole to Berlin, 
where they began to exploit her sexually without her consent, the offence having 
been committed through deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down 
a term of imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between 
BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or partial 
confiscation of the offender’s property. 
6) Between 14 May and late May 2021, he used another person – N.I.V. –, 
victim of trafficking in human beings, for sexual exploitation in Berlin, 
implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in point 1. 
For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down a term of imprisonment of between 
five and 15 years and a fine of between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the court also 
being able to order the full or partial confiscation of the offender’s property. 
7) Between January to 3 February 2022, he recruited in the town of S. 
(Bulgaria) and Berlin, with the involvement of two co-offenders and 
implementing a decision made by the criminal organisation referred to in point 1, 
TSENOCHEV 
 
9 
another person – V.V.K. – in order to use her for sexual exploitation in Germany, 
without her consent. On 2 February 2022, they moved her from S. to Berlin, 
where they began to exploit her sexually, without her consent, the offence having 
been committed through deception. For this offence, the Criminal Code lays down 
a term of imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of between 
BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or partial 
confiscation of the offender’s property. 
8) Between 3 February 2022 and 15 August 2023, he used another person – 
V.V.K. –, victim of trafficking in human beings, for sexual exploitation in Berlin 
and in the town of Haskovo (Bulgaria), implementing a decision made by the 
criminal organisation referred to in point 1. For this offence, the Criminal Code 
lays down a term of imprisonment of between five and 15 years and a fine of 
between BGN 20 000 and 100 000, the court also being able to order the full or 
partial confiscation of the offender’s property. 
4 As in the proceedings against M.N.D., the public prosecutor and defence lawyer 
for Y.G.Ts. made a written agreement stipulating, in accordance with 
Article 55(1) and Article 23 of the Criminal Code, that the accused would be 
sentenced to a combined term of imprisonment of two years, without the fine 
prescribed for any of the seven offences of trafficking in human beings being 
imposed. 
5 On 4 January 2024, during the pre-trial stage, the public prosecutor’s office 
determined that each of the women concerned was to be deemed a particularly 
vulnerable victim of human trafficking, and entered them in the special register 
provided for that purpose. The orders list the offences covered by the agreements. 
The grounds state that the victims should immediately inform the public 
prosecutor’s office of any attempt at intimidation, retaliation or influence. It is not 
known whether or when these orders were provided to the victims. 
6 On account of the substantive connection between them, the referring court joined 
the two cases. 
7 On 15 January 2024, the referring court requested the Konstitutsionen sad na 
Republika Bulgaria (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria (‘the 
Constitutional Court’) to determine as unconstitutional the provisions of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure (Article 381(2) and (3) and Article 382(3)) which make it 
possible to bring to an end, during the pre-trial stage, criminal proceedings 
relating to human trafficking by means of an agreement in which the injured party 
is not involved and without the injured party being compensated for material 
damage (loss of earnings). The main reason for the referral is that doubt exists as 
to the compatibility of those provisions with constitutional law which enshrines 
the principle of the rule of law, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a 
fair trial. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
10  
8 In the meantime, 10 other legal proceedings have been brought before the 
Okrazhen sad Pleven (Regional Court, Pleven, Bulgaria), concerning agreements 
submitted by the public prosecutor’s office for other persons in the same criminal 
organisation who are charged with offences falling within the ‘Trafficking in 
human beings’ section. All these agreements were approved by the respective 
criminal chambers to which the cases were allocated, without the injured women 
being involved and without them being compensated for the material damage 
caused by the offences. 
9 In the proceedings that are before the Constitutional Court, the referring court 
ruled on the applications made by the two accused persons to change their pre-
trial detention. 
10 On 20 February 2024, the defence lawyer for the accused person M.N.D. informed 
the referring court that the accused had withdrawn his consent to settlement of the 
criminal case by means of agreement and therefore requested that the procedure 
[for approving the agreement] be terminated, stating that the referral to the 
Constitutional Court affected the rights of his client. On 26 February 2024, a letter 
was also received from the other accused person, Y.G.Ts., in which he withdrew 
the agreement and asked the court not to approve it. On 1 March 2024, his defence 
lawyer also submitted notification of the withdrawal of the agreement and 
requested the procedure be terminated. 
11 The referring court suspended its rulings relating to the applications for 
termination until the hearing in which all the accused and their defence lawyers 
would take part and fixed the date for that hearing as 15 March 2024. 
12 On 12 March 2024, the case was referred to the appellate court (Apelativen sad 
Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, Veliko Tarnovo Appeal Court) on the basis of an 
appeal that was lodged against the ruling of the referring court rejecting the 
application of the accused person M.N.D. to change the pre-trial detention to a 
more lenient measure, and the hearing of 15 March 2024 was postponed until the 
case was referred back to the Regional Court of Pleven. 
13 On 13 March 2024, the Constitutional Court dismissed the referring court’s 
application as inadmissible on the grounds that it was not for the Constitutional 
Court to replace the will of the legislature with its own decision or to give 
instructions to the Narodno sabranie (National Assembly of the Republic of 
Bulgaria) as to the laws to be adopted. It stated that if the Constitutional Court 
were to allow substantive examination of the application, it would go beyond the 
limits of its powers of incidental review of statutory provisions and would itself 
become the legislating body. 
14 On 25 March 2024, M.N.D.’s defence lawyer lodged a complaint with the 
President of the Regional Court, Pleven, against the procedural acts of the 
President of the Chamber who made the present request for a preliminary ruling 
(‘the judge’), on the grounds that these acts were contrary to procedural law and 
TSENOCHEV 
 
11 
infringed the accused’s rights of defence (right to a trial within a reasonable time 
and release from pre-trial detention not later than after eight months). It is stated 
in the complaint that this delay in proceedings constitutes grounds for initiating 
disciplinary proceedings against the judge and that the matter had already been 
referred to the Ministry of Justice in that regard. The mere fact that the procedure 
had not been terminated constituted a stand-alone basis on which the judge was to 
incur disciplinary liability. A request was made for the case to be allocated to 
another judge who would examine the accused person’s application to change the 
measure for the provision of security instead and would rule on the case in the 
event of an indictment. As grounds for recusal, both the steps initiated against the 
judge by M.N.D and his defence lawyer and the judge’s manifest refusal to recuse 
himself, are cited. 
15 By order of 26 March 2024, the President of the Regional Court of Pleven invited 
the judge to submit his written opinion on the complaint and the application for 
recusal. 
16 At the hearing on 28 March 2024, the defence lawyer for the accused person 
Y.G.Ts also requested, quite vehemently, the recusal of the judge on the grounds 
that, the failure to comply with the seven-day time limit for settling the case by 
means of agreement, the absence of a ruling on the application to terminate the 
procedure after the accused person’s consent to the agreement had been 
withdrawn, and the way in which the questions referred to the Court for a 
preliminary ruling were formulated, demonstrated bias on the part of judge. 
17 On 2 April 2024, the Inspektorat na Visshia sadeben savet (supervisory body at 
the Supreme Judicial Council, Bulgaria) requested the President of the Regional 
Court, Pleven, to report on the entire matter at issue in the main proceedings. 
Brief summary of the reasons for the referral 
18 By means of its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court is pursuing the 
objective of ensuring effective protection of human dignity for victims of 
trafficking in human beings, in accordance with the requirements of international 
treaties and EU law. In addition, another question has arisen relating to the 
principle of the rule of law and judicial independence, from the applications and 
procedural actions of the accused persons and their lawyers in the main 
proceedings. The accused persons withdrew their consent to the settlement of the 
case by means of agreement only after they had been informed that the judge had 
expressed doubts as to the constitutionality of the procedural rules, on the grounds 
that they precluded effective protection of victims of trafficking in human beings 
in the context of criminal proceedings. 
19 National procedural law provides no opportunity for the parties to undo the seising 
of the court. No opportunity to declare their withdrawal of the agreement exists 
until the hearing, when the court asks the accused if he understands the charge, if 
he pleads guilty, if he understands the consequences of the agreement, if he 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
12  
consents to it and if he voluntarily signed it. This stage of the proceedings was not 
reached in the present case because the referring court had reason to believe that 
the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 382(3)) stipulating who 
is to be involved in this hearing compromises effective protection of the victim. 
20 The extremely active approach taken by the defence lawyers before the Minister 
of Justice, the President of the Regional Court, Pleven, and the supervisory 
authority at the Supreme Judicial Council, who have no jurisdiction to review the 
judge’s assessment in connection with the ruling on the recusal request, reinforces 
the suspicion that the procedural approach taken by the parties is, in practice, the 
expression of forum shopping, which is unlawful. 
21 Moreover, giving the parties in criminal proceedings an opportunity to deprive the 
judge of jurisdiction for the criminal case that has been validly allocated to him, 
when he is exercising his constitutional powers in order to ensure the effective and 
correct application of EU law for the benefit of the persons affected (victims of 
trafficking in human beings) who are not involved in the proceedings, could call 
into question whether the national courts are able to ensure the application of EU 
law and the effective protection of the rights recognised by the Charter. 
22 In accordance with Article 382(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is 
to fix a date for the hearing within seven days of receipt of the agreement and to 
rule on the matter itself. However, the referring court is of the view that 
Article 150(2) of the Constitution, confers on it, as a court of first and last 
instance, the right not to have to finally rule on the case until the Constitutional 
Court has given its judgment. The same is true regarding the right of the referring 
court, under Article 267 TFEU, to refer a question to the Court of Justice 
concerning binding interpretation where there is doubt as to the compatibility of 
national procedural provisions with EU law. 
23 In reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the referring court points out 
that it is not required, in the present case, to decline jurisdiction if the higher court 
were to issue such an instruction to it (Elchinov judgment), or because it has set 
out the factual and legal context in its request for a preliminary ruling (Ognyanov 
judgment). Even if the Constitutional Court had confirmed the constitutionality of 
the contested provisions, there would be nothing to prevent the court from 
referring a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (RS judgment). 
24 In accordance with Article 19 TEU, it is for the national courts to ensure the 
application of EU law in all the Member States and to provide comprehensive 
judicial protection of an individual’s rights under EU law. In order to be able to 
ensure that protection, national courts must be free to rule on questions concerning 
the application or interpretation of EU law, so that they may form part of the 
system and legal remedies in the fields covered by EU law, ensuring effective 
judicial protection. 
TSENOCHEV 
 
13 
25 The referring court is of the view that it is necessary to determine whether it must 
continue the criminal proceedings despite the withdrawal of the agreements. If the 
Court of Justice agrees with the view of the court, the court shall invite the injured 
parties to the hearing, at which it will give final judgment on the agreements, 
including on the withdrawn consents. 
26 According to the referring court, the interest in referring questions regarding 
interpretation of EU law continues to exist despite the withdrawal of the 
agreements, since the parties are not prevented from submitting the same 
agreements to another criminal chamber for approval. Other criminal chambers 
have approved the agreements made by other members of the same criminal 
organisation without having it examined whether the national law, which excludes 
victims from being involved in the procedure for settlement by means of 
agreement at the pre-trial stage, is consistent with the Constitution or with EU 
law. 
27 The referring court is of the view that excluding the victim from involvement in 
the procedure for settlement by means of agreement at the pre-trial stage deprives 
the victim, in practice, of the opportunity to exercise their rights sufficiently 
effectively to guarantee them an objective, complete and thorough investigation 
and prosecution of the offenders. The victim is prevented from commenting 
before the court on matters which have been settled by mutual agreement between 
the public prosecutor, the defence lawyer and the accused, in particular 
concerning the facts of the case, the offenders, the legal assessment of the events, 
and the severity of the penalty. 
28 The primary importance of the victim’s right to be heard in court only becomes 
accessible casuistically. In the present case, the public prosecutor’s investigation 
was limited to only some of the criminal acts, namely the recruitment of women 
from Bulgaria, their transfer across the national border and their entry, partly 
through deception, into Germany, where they were used for sexual exploitation. 
However, during questioning, the women affected referred to a series of other 
circumstances which indicate that they were subjected to psychological and 
physical force in order to prostitute themselves. The sums of money obtained of 
up to EUR 1 000 per day were forcibly taken away from them. They had to take 
drugs against their will in order to increase their physical capacity for the work. 
Some victims described sadistic methods of ill-treatment and systematic beatings. 
Under questioning, the victims mentioned death threats against their families in 
Bulgaria, the abduction of the child of one of the victims and the sexual abuse of 
the child, so that one of the victims returned to the offenders after escaping and 
had to pay them EUR 20 000 in respect of the escape. The latter victim was 
threatened during the investigation that had already been initiated and was 
blackmailed into paying a further EUR 50 000. 
29 The circumstances outlined above were not part of the investigation and do not 
appear in the orders by means of which the public prosecutor deemed these 
victims to be vulnerable. The referring court is therefore of the view that effective 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
14  
protection for the rights of victims of the trafficking of human beings is precluded 
if the victims are excluded from involvement in court proceedings, thus depriving 
them of the opportunity to be heard on all essential issues, namely on the facts of 
the case, the law and the penalty, whereas such protection must be guaranteed by 
the court. 
30 In this context, the referring court makes reference to the case-law of the ECtHR 
according to which the victims of serious crimes against their life and integrity are 
entitled to having investigations of offences and prosecutions brought against the 
offenders that are objective, complete and thorough. In the present case, the 
investigation was limited to offences which, while relating to various elements of 
the crime of trafficking in human beings, did not relate to the violations of the 
victims’ free will and integrity. 
31 The fact that the victims had, in formal terms, the procedural status of injured 
parties and that the public prosecutor made such a finding, but only as regards the 
offences covered by the agreements and not as regards all violent ill-treatment 
committed against them, does not extend to the degree of diligence that the State 
has to apply through its competent authorities in the detection of criminal offences 
that would fall under the absolute prohibitions in Articles 3 and 4 of the ECHR, or 
Articles 4 and 5 of the Charter. 
32 The requirements developed in the case-law of the ECtHR demand that 
investigations be conducted with all due diligence, thoroughness and exhaustion 
of all available means to detect the perpetrators of serious crimes and hold them 
accountable. Under Article 4 ECHR, States have a procedural obligation to 
prosecute offences and punish perpetrators, and investigations must be objective, 
thorough and complete, which implies that all aspects of exploitation by force and 
ill-treatment must be detected. 
33 In the present case, however, there are insufficient procedural safeguards to ensure 
that the State will meet this obligation and to ensure that the court has sufficiently 
clear and extensive powers to enable it to comprehensively and effectively protect 
the rights of the victim under national procedural law, namely Article 382(3) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that, for the purpose of approving 
an agreement at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings that will terminate the 
proceedings, the public prosecutor, the defence lawyer and the accused are 
involved in the hearing. 
34 Nor can any legitimacy for excluding the victim from active involvement in the 
settlement of criminal proceedings by means of agreement be inferred from the 
explanatory memorandum of the Bulgarian legislature. Such as solution is 
justified, in the draft law, solely on the basis of accelerating and terminating 
criminal proceedings within a reasonable time. 
35 However, terminating proceedings within a reasonable time is only one aspect 
among others of a fair criminal trial. For the purpose of accelerating proceedings, 
TSENOCHEV 
 
15 
it is therefore a disproportionate measure to deprive victims of the opportunity to 
be involved in the pre-trial settlement procedure and to be heard before the courts, 
and at the same time this constitutes unequal treatment as compared with the 
victims of the same offences for whom a ruling is made during the trial stage by 
means of agreement. 
36 Furthermore, the referring court has doubts as to whether the absence of an 
express obligation on the court to investigate, in the context of the differentiated 
procedure for approving an agreement made during the pre-trial procedure, the 
truth and all the circumstances relevant to the perpetrators’ liability and to the 
damage caused to the victim, would not be contrary to the general principle of 
effective judicial protection which safeguards the rights not only of defendants but 
also of victims. 
37 It is incompatible with the principle of effective protection and reparation for 
victims of trafficking in human beings that these procedural rules make it 
impossible for victims to be involved in the court hearing for the purpose of 
settlement of the criminal proceedings by means of agreement, and this is further 
compounded by the fact that they receive no compensation for the material 
damage suffered. 
38 Although Article 381(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an 
agreement is permissible, in the case of material damage caused by the criminal 
offence, only after compensation or provision of security in this respect has been 
provided, according to a binding interpretative decision of the Obshto sabranie na 
nakazatelnata kolegia na Varhoven kasatsionen sad (General Assembly of the 
Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria), however, it is 
sufficient, in order for the differentiated procedure for settling criminal 
proceedings by means of agreement to be permissible, if only material damage 
arising directly from the elements of the offence is compensated or security 
provided in this respect. However, damage is not mentioned as a required element 
for the offences in the ‘Trafficking in human beings’ section. 
39 The ECtHR (in Krachunova v. Bulgaria) held that it was contrary to Article 4 
ECHR not to compensate the victim of trafficking in human beings for the 
material damage caused by the perpetrator who derived their income from the 
victim’s sexual exploitation. Giving the injured party the opportunity to recover 
the lost income could go a considerable way to providing almost full 
compensation for the material damage suffered as a result of the offence, 
providing the victim with the financial means to rebuild her life, uphold her 
dignity and reduce the risk of falling victim again to human trafficking. 
40 It follows that the payment of compensation to victims of trafficking in human 
beings must not be regarded as an incidental consideration, but must be regarded 
as an essential element of the State response to trafficking in human beings 
required by Article 4 of the ECHR. Compensation for the victim must therefore be 
a central consideration in the light of human rights. The ECtHR concludes that 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
16  
said provision imposes an obligation on the Contracting States to grant victims of 
trafficking in human beings an opportunity to demand compensation for lost 
earnings from perpetrators. 
41 For that reason, and since Directive 2011/36 is based on the same reasoning, the 
referring court is of the view that it is necessary to examine whether that Directive 
permits a decision by the national legislature excluding victims from involvement 
in judicial proceedings for the approval of an agreement terminating criminal 
proceedings relating to human trafficking and permitting such an agreement in the 
first place without the victims obtaining compensation for the material damage 
suffered. 
42 Furthermore, Article 47 of the Charter requires procedural safeguards to ensure 
that the rights of victims of crime to a fair and public hearing by an independent 
court, to legal advice and representation, to legal aid and to an effective remedy 
are respected. 
43 In addition to these requirements, which apply to victims of all crimes, the ECHR, 
the Charter and EU secondary legislation also impose stricter protection rules for 
particularly vulnerable groups such as victims of trafficking in human beings. In 
the present case, the victims of the offences to which the accused persons have 
pleaded guilty are vulnerable in two respects: one, they were victims of trafficking 
in human beings, and two, the offences were committed as part of an organised 
criminal group. These are serious offences for which EU secondary legislation on 
combating trafficking in human beings and organised crime impose stricter 
requirements. 
44 In order to fulfil the obligation to grant victims access to justice, all of the 
following conditions must be met: Serious ill-treatment must be penalised by 
effective and dissuasive sentences (implemented in the present case by the 
provisions of Section IX of Chapter 2 of the specific part of the Criminal Code), 
there must be an effective investigation (which is carried out by independent 
persons, can lead to criminal liability and is accessible to the victim) and 
appropriate compensation for the damage suffered must be awarded. 
45 The failure to establish all the facts, including all the victims and all damage 
suffered by the victims of trafficking in human beings, is, in Bulgaria, a systemic 
problem which was identified in the judgment of the ECtHR in S.Z. v. Bulgaria. 
Exclusion of the victim from involvement in the approval hearing is, in the view 
of the referring court, contrary to the principle of equal treatment of the parties 
(offenders and victim) and hinders the victim’s access to justice. 
46 If the agreement had been made at the trial stage, the victim would at the same 
time have had an opportunity to give their opinion if they had requested 
involvement as a party to the case and this opinion would have been binding, 
since, under the differentiated procedure, the case cannot be terminated by means 
of agreement without the consent of the victim. 
TSENOCHEV 
 
17 
47 Moreover, if the criminal proceedings had entered the judicial stage in accordance 
with the general rules, the victim, like the accused, would have had an additional 
procedural guarantee provided by the court’s obligation to ensure, ex officio, both 
the protection of the rights of the accused and the protection of the rights of the 
victim. The rights of the victim would be protected by the serious consequence 
laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure that the judge could terminate the 
judicial proceedings and refer the case back to the public prosecutor’s office if he 
found that there were serious errors and ordered that those errors be rectified. 
48 Where the case is settled by means of a [pre-trial] agreement, the court is not 
under any such obligation, since it only has to examine, under Article 382(7) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether the legal and moral requirements are 
met within the agreement itself, in terms of the procedural requirements for the 
information contained therein, compensation and substantive law. 
49 There is no legitimate justification for the legislative solution of excluding the 
victim from the group of persons whose consent is necessary in order to bring the 
proceedings to an end by means of agreement [at the pre-trial stage of the criminal 
proceedings] in order to accelerate the criminal proceedings, and this would 
appear to confer an unfair advantage on the accused and their defence lawyer. 
50 The fact that Article 381(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow a 
criminal case to be resolved by means of a [pre-trial] agreement for the offences 
referred to in Section VIII ‘Prohibited activities in the sexual sphere’ of Chapter 2, 
while providing for that very possibility for the offences referred to in Section IX 
‘Trafficking in human beings’ in the same chapter, raises the question of whether 
this is compatible with the principles of fairness and equal treatment. Such 
compatibility would be contradicted by the fact that most forms of trafficking in 
human beings, including the offence in question, involve sexual exploitation. The 
essential difference is that the criminal offences in the ‘Prohibited activities in the 
sexual sphere’ section are individual offences where the object of protection is the 
integrity of the person, whereas the criminal offences in the ‘Trafficking in human 
beings’ section furthermore significantly and permanently impair human dignity 
and freedom of will in connection with the intention to enrich oneself through the 
exploitation of a person. 
51 Finally, the referring court has doubts as to how the provisions of EU law on the 
effectiveness of penalties for trafficking in human beings are to be interpreted. As 
stated in recital 12 of Directive 2011/36, the levels of penalties in this Directive 
reflect the growing concern among Member States regarding the development of 
the phenomenon of trafficking in human beings. When the offence is committed 
in certain circumstances, for example against a particularly vulnerable victim, the 
penalty should be more severe (particularly vulnerable victims include victims 
whose life has been endangered or if the offence has involved serious violence 
such as torture, forced drug/medication usage, rape and other serious forms of 
psychological, physical or sexual violence or particularly serious harm has 
otherwise been caused to the victim). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-241/24 
 
18  
52 Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/36 governs the requirements relating to the extent 
of the penalty for those serious cases of trafficking in human beings, by providing 
for imprisonment of at least 10 years, whereas, under national law, this is the 
upper limit (the maximum penalty). This requirement is met in the present case, as 
the public prosecutor’s office set a penalty range of five to 15 years’ 
imprisonment. However, where the Directive does not provide for a minimum 
threshold, the referring court still needs to interpret how it can take account of the 
need for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties under national rules. 
53 The referring court has requested, pursuant to Article 107 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of Justice, that the case be dealt with under the urgent 
preliminary ruling procedure, as the two accused are in pre-trial detention.