Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:210
Date: 2026-03-17
Language of the case: Croatian
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Croatia

Translation C-8/24 – 1 
Case C-8/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
9 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Visoki kazneni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 October 2023 
Appellant: 
D. d.o.o. 
Other party to the proceedings: 
Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu 
  
[…] 
The Visoki kazneni sud Republike Hrvatske (Criminal Court of Appeal of the 
Republic of Croatia), […] examining the appeals of the public prosecutor and of 
the company D. d.o.o. with its registered office in Z. against the judgment of the 
Županijski sud u Zagrebu (County Court, Zagreb) of 25 November 2022 […], 
submits the following request pursuant to Article 267(3) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’): 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING  
(anonymised version) 
I Information about the referring court: 
Referring court: Visoki kazneni sud Republike Hrvatske (Criminal Court of 
Appeal of the Republic of Croatia) 
[…] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
2  
II Parties in the present case: 
1. The commercial company D. d.o.o. with its registered office in Z. (Republic 
of Croatia) […] […] 
[…] 
2. The Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu (Zagreb County Public 
Prosecutor’s Office), which is the authority competent to apply for the registration 
and approval of the confiscation order issued by the Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru 
(Regional Court, Maribor, Republic of Slovenia). 
[…] 
III Subject matter of the main proceedings and relevant facts 
(a) Succinct presentation of the main proceedings 
1 The Criminal Court of Appeal of the Republic of Croatia is examining the appeals 
of the public prosecutor and of the commercial company D. d.o.o. brought against 
the judgment of the County Court, Zagreb, 1 which recognised the confiscation 
order contained in the judgment of the Regional Court, Maribor. 2 The 
confiscation order applies to the shares of L.Z. d.d., which are subject to a 
temporary freeze to secure the confiscation of proceeds [of crime]. 
2 The Republic of Slovenia (Regional Court, Maribor) submitted to the Zagreb 
County Public Prosecutor’s Office the confiscation certificate (‘the certificate’) 
referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of 
freezing orders and confiscation orders (‘Regulation 2018/1805’) as well as a 
translation of the introduction, operative part, and part of the grounds of the first-
instance judgment containing the confiscation order and a translation of the 
introduction and operative part of the second-instance judgment dismissing the 
appeals against the first-instance judgment and making the confiscation order final 
as a result. 3 Consequently, the Zagreb County Public Prosecutor’s Office made a 
request to the County Court, Zagreb, to recognise and execute the confiscation 
order. 
 
1 Judgment of the County Court, Zagreb, of 25 November 2022. […] 
2 Judgment of the Regional Court, Maribor (Republic of Slovenia) of 27 May 2020 […], upheld 
by the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Republic of Slovenia) of 24 November 2021. […] 
3 The Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 14(2) of Regulation 2018/1805, made a 
declaration stating that when a confiscation certificate is transmitted to it with a view to the 
recognition and execution of a confiscation order, the issuing authority must transmit the 
original confiscation order or a certified copy thereof together with the confiscation certificate. 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
3 
3 The referring court hearing the appeal has doubts as to whether the property 
subject to the confiscation order falls within the scope of Article 2(3) of 
Regulation 2018/1805 and, therefore, has doubts as to the rights of the affected 
person in the context of respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the breach of which 
rights may in exceptional situations constitute grounds for non-recognition and 
non-execution of a confiscation order as indicated in Article 19(1)(h) of 
Regulation 2018/1805, which will be explained below in detail. 
(b) Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
Information contained in the confiscation certificate: 
4 The certificate shows that the Regional Court, Maribor, issued a confiscation 
order, 4 in which it ruled that shares in L.Z. d.d. (‘L.Z’) were to be confiscated 
from the commercial company D. d.o.o. (‘D.’), with its registered office in Z., 
namely 31 669 shares held in the account of the trustee H.V. d.d. (‘H.V.’) and 
25 250 shares held in the account of the trustee P.B. d.d. (‘P.B.’) (that is to say, a 
total of 56 919 shares in L.Z. d.d.). 
5 In its certificate, the Regional Court, Maribor, described the shares in L.Z. as the 
proceeds of a criminal offence […] in accordance with Article 2(3)(a) of 
Regulation 2018/1805 and subject to confiscation […] without a final conviction 
[…], following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence in accordance with 
Article 2(3)(d) of that regulation. 
6 The Regional Court, Maribor, stated in Section F of the certificate that it had 
issued a confiscation order in connection with the criminal offence of acting to the 
detriment of creditors 5 and the criminal offence of money laundering, 6 the latter 
criminal offence being included in the list set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation 
2018/1805 (laundering of the proceeds of crime). 
6.1. The Regional Court, Maribor, concluded, therefore, that the evidentiary 
proceedings had demonstrated that all the statutory criteria of the criminal offence 
of acting to the detriment of creditors had been fulfilled, since in June 2013 
Mr J. T., as a nominee director of the insolvent company I.J.S. d.d. (‘I.J.S.’), 
acting on the instructions of Mr D. R., together with Mr T. V., as a director of the 
company V. K. d.o.o. (‘V.K.’), and Mr D. K., as a director of the company M. 
d.o.o. (‘M.’), carried out legal transactions in order to defraud, and act to the 
 
4 Order of the Regional Court, Maribor, dated […] 27 May 2020, which became final on 
22 December 2021. 
5 The criminal offence of acting to the detriment of creditors under Article 227(2) of the KZ-1 
(Criminal Code). 
6 The criminal offence of money laundering under Article 245(3), read in conjunction with 
Article 245(1), of the KZ-1 (Criminal Code). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
4  
detriment of, the creditors of I.J.S. It is relevant to the present proceedings that the 
Regional Court, Maribor, found that in this manner, V.K. acquired the claims of 
I.J.S. and 56 919 shares in L.Z. – which secured one of the claims and which, until 
the recapitalisation in 2018, constituted 53.57% of the ownership rights – without 
actual payment, that is to say, by merely assuming the obligation to pay under the 
concluded contracts. In this manner, significant damage was caused to the 
creditors of I.J.S. – the companies [Z.E.H.] and Z.D.H. d.d. (‘Z.D.H’). 
6.2. The Regional Court, Maribor, found that the shares in L.Z. were subsequently 
disposed of in order to conceal their origin. Thus, in July 2013, Mr J. T., as a 
director of I.J.S., acting on the instructions of Mr D. R., and Mr D. R., as a 
director of D., entered into an agreement whereby I.J.S. sold to D. a claim on V.K. 
On the same day, Mr D. R., as a director of D., and Mr T. V., as a director of 
V.K., entered into a share sale agreement, whereby V.K. sold 56 919 shares in 
L.Z. to D., which fulfilled its obligation to pay the sale price by assuming the debt 
of V.K. to I.J.S. 
6.3. The Regional Court, Maribor, found that the L.Z. shares in question had 
been subject to a temporary freeze, but during a short period (from 16 September 
to 20 October 2014) when the shares were not frozen – namely on 13 October 
2014 – they had been transferred to escrow accounts, making it impossible to 
identify their beneficial owners. 
6.4. The Regional Court, Maribor, found that all the persons involved, with the 
exception of Mr J. T., who was merely a fictitious director, had been aware of 
what they were doing, had known that their conduct was illegal, had engaged in 
that conduct deliberately, and also that their criminal offences had been proven in 
respect of both action and intention. 
6.5. The Regional Court, Maribor, further stated that the confiscation of the 
proceeds [of crime] was ordered on the basis of the public prosecutor’s reasoned 
request made in the prosecutor’s closing speech after extensive evidentiary 
proceedings. 
7 In Section H of the certificate, the Regional Court, Maribor, stated that a 
representative of D., Mr Z. Z., had appeared in person before the court. 
7.1. The Regional Court, Maribor, further clarified that Mr Z. Z. had been 
questioned during the main hearing and advised in accordance with Article 500 of 
the ZKP (Slovenian Code of Criminal Procedure) that he was testifying in the 
context of the possible confiscation of the proceeds of another beneficiary –D. – 
and that in connection with the determination of those proceeds [of crime] he had 
the right to submit evidence and, with the consent of the presiding judge, also to 
ask questions, and, furthermore, that he had been advised about the possible 
confiscation of those proceeds: 56 919 shares in L.Z. 
7.2. The Regional Court, Maribor, stated that at that time Mr Z. Z. had testified 
that he was aware of the temporary freeze, that he considered the temporary freeze 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
5 
to be unjustified, and for that reason had already appealed through his lawyer to 
the County Court, Zagreb, but the appeal had been unsuccessful. He also stated 
that he would appeal if the shares were confiscated. 
7.3. The Regional Court, Maribor, further stated that it had served excerpts from 
the 27 May 2020 judgment containing the confiscation order (the introduction, 
operative part, and part of the grounds concerning the confiscated proceeds and 
the available remedies), together with their translation into Croatian, on D., which 
received the judgment on 13 October 2020, but did not appeal against it. 
7.4. The judgment of the Regional Court, Maribor, became final on 22 December 
2021, after the Višje sodišče (Court of Appeal, Slovenia) upheld it. The judgment 
of the Court of Appeal was served on D. on 12 January 2022. The certificate was 
issued on 17 February 2022. 
Information contained in the provided excerpts from the judgment of the Regional 
Court, Maribor 
8 It follows from the judgment of the Regional Court, Maribor, that a panel of that 
court conducted criminal proceedings against the defendants Mr Lj. P., Mr F. J., 
Ms M. V. S. and Mr S. Z. on the basis of an indictment drawn up by the 
Specializirano državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije (Specialised Public 
Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Slovenia) on 29 May 2017, supplemented 
on 23 October 2017 and amended on 21 April 2020, in which the defendants were 
charged with the offence of abuse of position and power under Article 244(2), 
read in conjunction with Article 244(1), and Article 25 of the Kazenski zakonik 
(Slovenian Criminal Code). 
9 After the main hearing on 22 May 2020, in the presence of the abovementioned 
defendants, their lawyers and the public prosecutor, the Regional Court, Maribor, 
delivered its judgment on 27 May 2020, acquitting the defendants. 
9.1 Thus, according to the operative part of the judgment, the defendants were 
acquitted of the charges that between 11 and 25 July 2007, acting as accomplices, 
they had used their positions and powers in the course of their business activities 
to obtain substantial benefits for I.J.S. 
9.1.1. According to the charges, Z.D.H., represented by the chair of its 
management board, Mr F. J., entered into a loan agreement with a bank. As 
collateral for the loan, Z.E.H., represented by the chair of its management board, 
Mr S. Z., pledged shares in H., C.C. and B., and subsequently [the bank] 
transferred the funds to Z.D.H., which in the meantime – represented by 
management board member Mr Lj. P. – entered into a loan agreement with Z.E.H. 
for the same amount, and Z.E.H., represented by Ms M. V. S., entered into a loan 
agreement for a similar amount with the I.J.S., represented by nominee director 
Mr D. Š. As collateral for the latter loan, I.J.S., notwithstanding the fact that it was 
over-indebted, submitted two blank promissory notes and a promissory note 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
6  
agreement. In this way, the defendants acted to the detriment of Z.E.H., which no 
longer held the pledged securities and, despite having sold the pledged securities, 
was left with a debt to the bank as the lender. At the same time, they obtained 
significant benefits for I.J.S. 
9.2. The operative part of the judgment of the Regional Court, Maribor, also 
includes the decision to confiscate from the D. with its registered office in Z. a 
total of 56 919 shares in L.Z. for the benefit of the Republic of Slovenia under 
Article 498a(1)(1) of the Zakon o kazenskem postupku (Slovenian Code of 
Criminal Procedure), but the decision on how to carry out the confiscation is to be 
made in the executing State. 
10 The grounds of that judgment indicate that the decision to confiscate the shares 
was based on the outcome of the evidentiary proceedings, which demonstrated 
that Mr J.T., as a nominee director of the insolvent I.J.S., acting on the 
instructions of Mr D. R., Mr T. V., as a director of V.K., and Mr D. K., as a 
director of M., committed, in 2013, the criminal offence of acting to the detriment 
of creditors, that is to say, the criminal offence of money laundering (as 
previously described in paragraph 6 of this request and its subparagraphs). 
10.1. On 27 January 2020, a panel of the Regional Court, Maribor, questioned a 
representative of D. d.o.o., Mr Z. Z.; he was advised of his rights by the court and 
testified as stated in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of this request. 
10.2. Furthermore, it follows from the judgment that on 22 May 2020 the 
Regional Court, Maribor, held the main hearing in open session in the presence of 
the public prosecutor, the four defendants and their counsels, and that in his 
closing speech the public prosecutor requested that D. be subject to confiscation 
of proceeds. 
10.3. Moreover, in the grounds of the judgment it is stated that the criminal 
offence of acting to the detriment of creditors was the subject of a preliminary 
investigation (which involved a house search and the ordering of a temporary 
freeze in connection with a request for the confiscation of proceeds), such that the 
case file […] also relates to that criminal offence, but that criminal offence was 
not included in the subsequent indictment. 
10.4. It also follows from the grounds of the judgment that, in the meantime, 
Mr J. T. died, and Mr D. R. was questioned as a witness in the case at issue. 
10.5. It is further pointed out in the grounds of the judgment that the decision to 
confiscate the shares was made in the proceedings in which the defendants were 
acquitted rather than in the special non-contentious proceedings conducted by 
another court panel after the judgment had become final, but D., as the beneficiary 
of the improperly obtained proceeds, was not adversely affected by that fact. That 
is because it is possible to appeal against a judgment and the time limit for lodging 
an appeal is longer than in the case of an order, the appeal is heard by a court of 
the same instance, and the panel conducting the non-contentious proceedings and 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
7 
the investigating judge would not be able to gather and examine more evidence 
than the panel hearing the case. 
11 The referring court has also been provided with the introduction and operative part 
of the judgment of the court of appeal, which shows that a panel of that court 
dismissed the public prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment of 
the Regional Court, Maribor, at a hearing held on 24 November 2021 in the 
presence of all the defendants, their lawyers, and the public prosecutor from the 
appellate prosecutor’s office. 
Arguments of the parties: 
(a) Pleas raised by the appellant – D.: 
12 In its appeal, D. alleges that the Regional Court, Maribor erred in stating that the 
person in charge at the company (Mr Z. Z.) had appeared in person at the court 
proceedings that ended in a final conviction (Section H of the certificate). 
12.1. D. states that the person in charge at the company participated in the hearing 
as a witness. 
12.2. D. states that the hearing attended by Mr [Z. Z]. did not result in a 
confiscation order, as the public prosecutor only requested the confiscation of 
proceeds later in his closing speech. 
12.3. D. states that the proceedings concerning the temporary freeze in which D. 
lodged an appeal with the County Court, Zagreb, are separate and distinct 
proceedings from those in which the Regional Court, Maribor, acquitted the 
defendants and issued the confiscation order. 
13 D. disputes that the proceedings in which the confiscation order was issued were 
proceedings on whose basis the confiscation order could be recognised and 
executed in accordance with Regulation 2018/1805, and argues that the rights and 
freedoms enshrined in the Charter have clearly been breached. 
13.1. D. states that the criminal proceedings concerned charges that the criminal 
offence of abuse of position and power had been committed in 2007, and that the 
confiscation order is based on findings of fact contained in the grounds of the 
judgment regarding other criminal offences committed by other persons during a 
different period. Those persons did not participate in the proceedings. In that 
regard, D. refers to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on asset recovery and confiscation of 25 May 2022, COM(2022)0245, 
which provides for the confiscation of assets from third parties without a 
conviction in cases where criminal proceedings have been initiated but the 
proceedings cannot be continued due to the illness, absconding, death, immunity 
from prosecution of the suspected or accused person or amnesty granted to the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
8  
suspected or accused person or expiry of the time limits prescribed by national 
law, but not in cases of acquittal. 
13.2. D. argues that the company could not effectively participate in the 
proceedings because the person in charge at the company was summoned once to 
the hearing as a witness, and also because the judgment of the Regional Court, 
Maribor, which the company received was not translated into Croatian in full, but 
only in excerpts, and as a result its right to language, and consequently its right to 
defence, access to a tribunal and effective remedy were violated. D. also disputes 
that it received the excerpts from the judgment, as stated in the certificate, on 
13 October 2020. The company claims that it only received the judgment at its 
own request in February 2022, and thus after the certificate had been issued, and 
proposes that the opinion of a handwriting expert be sought to verify that fact. 
(b) The position of the public prosecutor: 
14 The public prosecutor argues that the essence of the present proceedings is that the 
defendants were acquitted of the charges of abuse of position and power by 
allowing undue benefits to be obtained from the acquisition of shares in L.Z., and 
subsequently all those shares were transferred for nil consideration to D., against 
which a confiscation order was issued. 
14.1. The public prosecutor believes that no procedural requirements concerning 
D. were breached during the proceedings, since the person in charge was advised 
of his right to submit evidence and to ask questions, and was also made aware of 
the possibility that the shares could be confiscated, and did not appeal against the 
judgment, excerpts of which were served on the company. With respect to the 
confiscation procedure itself, the public prosecutor notes that the confiscation took 
place in accordance with the Slovenian Code of Criminal Procedure, and under 
recital 13 of Regulation 2018/1805, the fact that there is no such provision in the 
laws of the Republic of Croatia is irrelevant to the decision to recognise and 
execute the confiscation order in accordance with the abovementioned regulation. 
14.2. The grounds raised in the appeal by the Zagreb County Public Prosecutor’s 
Office concern the manner in which the confiscation order was executed and are 
irrelevant to this request for a preliminary ruling. 
IV Provisions of national law relied on: 
15 In the present case, Regulation 2018/1805 is directly applicable (Article 288(2) 
TFEU). 
(a) Law of the Republic of Croatia 
16 In the appeal proceedings, under Article 480(1) of the Zakon o kaznenom 
postupku (Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure) [Narodne novine (Official 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
9 
Gazette) Nos 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 91/12 – resolution of the Ustavni sud 
(Constitutional Court, Republic of Croatia), 143/12, 56/13, 145/13, 152/14, 70/17, 
126/19 and 80/22, ‘ZKP/08’]: 
‘The court of second instance may, at a session or on the basis of the hearing held, 
reject an appeal as lodged out of time or inadmissible, or dismiss an appeal as 
unfounded and uphold the judgment at first instance, or set aside the judgment and 
refer the case back to the court of first instance for review and adjudication, or 
amend the judgment at first instance.’ 
(b) Law of the Republic of Slovenia 
17 Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Slovenia 
‘(I) In addition to cases where criminal proceedings are concluded with a 
judgment finding the suspect guilty, monies or property of illegal origin under 
Article 245 of the Kazenski zakonik (Criminal Code) and bribes unlawfully given 
or accepted under Articles 151, 157, 241, 242, 261, 262, 263 and 264 of the 
Criminal Code shall also be confiscated: 
(1) if the statutory criteria of a criminal offence under Article 245 of the 
Criminal Code have been fulfilled, indicating that the monies or property under 
said article are proceeds of crime. […] 
(3) The panel shall issue a special order (Article 25 (6)) on this matter upon a 
reasoned request from the public prosecutor; prior to that, the investigating judge 
shall, at the request of the panel, gather information and examine all 
circumstances relevant to establishing the illegal origin of the monies, property or 
bribes unlawfully given or accepted. 
(4) A certified copy of the order referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be 
served on the owner of the confiscated monies or property or [giver or receiver of 
the] bribe, if his or her identity is known. […] 
(5) The owner of the confiscated monies or property or [giver or receiver of the] 
bribe shall have the right to appeal against the order referred to in paragraph 2 of 
this Article if he or she believes that the confiscation has no legal basis’. 
V. Provisions of European Union law whose interpretation is sought: 
18 Charter of Fundamental Rights: 
Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial 
‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are 
violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with 
the conditions laid down in this Article. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
10  
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an 
independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall 
have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.’ […] 
19 Regulation 2018/1805: 
Article 1 – Subject matter 
‘1. This Regulation lays down the rules under which a Member State recognises 
and executes in its territory freezing orders and confiscation orders issued by 
another Member State within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters. 
2. This Regulation shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to 
respect the fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined in Article 6 TEU.’ 
Article 2 – Definitions 
[…] 
(3) ‘“property” means property of any description, whether corporeal or 
incorporeal, movable or immovable, and legal documents or instruments 
evidencing title or interest in such property, which the issuing authority considers 
to be: 
(a) the proceeds of a criminal offence, or its equivalent, whether the full amount 
of the value or only part of the value of such proceeds;  
[…] 
(d) subject to confiscation under any other provisions relating to powers of 
confiscation, including confiscation without a final conviction, under the law of 
the issuing State, following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence;’ 
Article 19 – Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution of confiscation 
orders 
‘1. The executing authority may decide not to recognise and not to execute 
confiscation orders only if: 
[…] 
(h) in exceptional situations, there are substantial grounds to believe, on the 
basis of specific and objective evidence, that the execution of the confiscation 
order would, in the particular circumstances of the case, entail a manifest breach 
of a relevant fundamental right as set out in the Charter, in particular the right to 
an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial or the right of defence.’ 
Article 33 – Legal remedies in the executing State against the recognition and 
execution of a freezing order or confiscation order 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
11 
‘1. Affected persons shall have the right to effective legal remedies in the 
executing State against the decision on the recognition and execution of […] 
confiscation orders pursuant to Article 18. […] 
2. The substantive reasons for issuing the freezing order or confiscation order 
shall not be challenged before a court in the executing State’. […] 
20 Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 
2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime 
in the European Union (‘Directive 2014/42/EU’) 
Article 8 – Safeguards 
[…] 
‘7. Without prejudice to Directive 2012/13/EU and Directive 2013/48/EU, 
persons whose property is affected by a confiscation order shall have the right of 
access to a lawyer throughout the confiscation proceedings relating to the 
determination of the proceeds and instrumentalities in order to uphold their rights. 
The persons concerned shall be informed of that right.’ […] 
VI Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary 
ruling 
21 The Criminal Court of Appeal of the Republic of Croatia is examining the appeals 
against the judgment of the court of first instance (County Court, Zagreb), which 
recognised the confiscation order issued by the Regional Court, Maribor. The law 
does not provide for an ordinary remedy against the rulings of the Criminal Court 
of Appeal of the Republic of Croatia, and thus under Article 267(3) TFEU, due to 
existing doubts concerning the interpretation of Regulation 2018/1805, the court is 
in principle obliged to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (judgment of the Court of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian 
Management, C-561/19). 
22 First of all, it should be noted that the Republic of Croatia, in addition to the 
certificate, also requires the original confiscation order (Article 14(2) of 
Regulation 2018/1805); in the case at hand, these are the judgments of the 
Regional Court, Maribor, and of the Court of Appeal. The judgments were served 
on the referring court (as well as on D., as will be discussed below) only in 
excerpts that the Regional Court, Maribor, considered relevant to the present 
proceedings, that is to say, the introduction and operative part (pages 1–4), an 
excerpt from the grounds of the judgment (pages 63–71) and information on the 
remedies available (pages 71–72) from the judgment of the Regional Court, 
Maribor, and the introduction and operative part of the judgment of the Court of 
Appeal. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
12  
22.1. On the basis of the documents thus served, it may be concluded that the 
Regional Court, Maribor, conducted criminal proceedings against the four 
defendants 7 concerning the offence of abuse of position and power committed in 
2007. The description of the facts related to the criminal offence of which the 
defendants were acquitted, included in the operative part of the judgment, does not 
contain a single reference to shares in L.Z., while the grounds pertaining to that 
part of the judgment were not served. Additionally, the four defendants 
participated in those criminal proceedings, in the course of which they were 
acquainted with the charges and had the opportunity to challenge them with the 
assistance of their lawyers, and they were ultimately acquitted of those charges. In 
giving its reasons for the acquittal, the Regional Court, Maribor, referred, inter 
alia, to events that occurred after 2007, specifically in 2013, in which events the 
four defendants were no longer involved, and which concerned other persons. 8 
Those grounds of the judgment provided the basis for issuing a confiscation order. 
23 Therefore, in the present case, the confiscation order is based on an acquittal. 
23.1. Hence, the first question that the court wishes to raise is whether the term 
‘proceedings in relation to a criminal offence that may result in confiscation of 
property, including confiscation without a conviction’ within the meaning of 
Article 2(3) of Regulation 2018/1805 also includes criminal proceedings 
concluded with an acquittal. 
24 If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the Criminal Court of 
Appeal of the Republic of Croatia has further doubts. 
25 In the present case, the acquittal was accompanied by a confiscation order, which 
was based on the findings contained in the grounds of the judgment that 
concerned another criminal offence, committed by other perpetrators and not by 
the defendants. It is therefore a criminal case rather than a civil-law request as in 
the main proceedings in the case heard by the Court of Justice which gave rise to 
the judgment of 19 March 2020, Agro in 2001 (C-234/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:221). 
25.1. Under the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure, confiscation of proceeds is 
possible following a conviction or a judgment which finds that the suspect 
committed the unlawful act that is the subject of the charge in proceedings against 
property. However, such proceedings are conducted upon the motion of the 
competent prosecutor, while the operative part of the judgment identifies the 
criteria of the unlawful act as a result of which the proceeds were obtained, and 
the persons in respect of whom the confiscation of proceeds is requested may 
participate in the proceedings and challenge all elements relating both to the 
unlawful act itself and to the facts that determine the confiscation of proceeds; 
they also have the right to representation. 
 
7 Defendants: […] 
8 Other persons: […] 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
13 
25.2. Notwithstanding the above, the referring court also considered the objectives 
of Regulation 2018/1805 in terms of facilitating the mutual recognition and 
execution of confiscation orders, and in particular recital 13 thereof, which states 
that there are no obstacles to recognising orders that do not exist in the legal 
system of the executing State. 
25.3. In addition, the Criminal Court of Appeal of the Republic of Croatia also 
had in mind Directive 2014/42/EU, which, through the adoption of minimum 
rules, seeks to approximate the Member States’ confiscation regimes, thus 
facilitating mutual trust and effective cross-border cooperation. Thus, under the 
directive, which also covers money laundering, confiscation of proceeds occurs in 
the event of a final conviction for a criminal offence (Article 4(1)) or in special 
proceedings where the criminal proceedings initiated cannot be completed as a 
result of the illness or absconding of the suspected or accused person 
(Article 4(2)). At the same time, it is understood that the directive regulates 
minimum rules and that individual national laws may provide for a broader 
framework than that set out in the directive. 
25.4. In the present case, it appears from the grounds of the judgment of the 
Regional Court, Maribor, that one of the persons who, according to those grounds, 
was involved in committing the criminal offence of acting to the detriment of 
creditors, Mr J. T., has in the meantime died, but the Regional Court, Maribor, did 
not even find that he had committed a criminal offence. No such information is 
available, however, with regard to the other persons (Mr T. V. and Mr D. K.), 
while Mr D. R., according to the grounds of the judgment, was heard as a witness 
in the case. In addition, the Regional Court, Maribor explicitly states in its 
judgment that a preliminary investigation was conducted with respect to the 
criminal offence of acting to the detriment of creditors (it does not specify which 
suspects the investigation concerned), but it did not result in charges. 
25.5. In this connection, it should be noted that the operative part of the judgment 
of the Regional Court, Maribor, does not contain information about the 
perpetrators or a description of the criminal offence on the basis of which that 
court issued the confiscation order. 
25.5.1. In that regard, the referring court also bore in mind the Court’s judgment of 
12 October 2023, Inter-Consulting, C-726/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:764, which was 
published during the drafting of the present request for a preliminary ruling. 
Although that judgment concerns other sources of EU law, the Court notes the 
importance not just of the operative part of the judgment, but also of the facts 
cited in the grounds that were the subject of the preliminary investigation, as well 
as all other relevant information. 
25.5.2. That case, however, concerned the application of the ne bis in idem 
principle, and thus the mutual trust of Member States in their respective criminal 
justice systems: each Member State consents to the application of the criminal law 
in force in other Member States even when the outcome would be different if its 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
14  
own national law were applied. The purpose of that is to ensure, in the area of 
freedom, security and justice, that a person whose trial has been finally disposed 
of is not prosecuted for the same acts. As the referring court understands it, a set 
of facts known to the (law enforcement) authorities of one State resulted in a final 
judgment on which the ne bis in idem prohibition is based. 
25.5.3. Unlike in that case, however, the essence of the problem in the case at hand 
is the absence of charges, that is to say, no motion was put forward to determine 
the elements and perpetrators of the criminal offences on which the court based 
the confiscation order, which then logically affected the scope of examination of 
the case and the predictability of that scope for the participants in the proceedings, 
especially since the formal request concerning the confiscation of shares was only 
made in the closing speech. 
25.6. In view of the above, assuming that the answer to the first question is in the 
affirmative, the next question that should be asked is whether ‘proceedings in 
relation to a criminal offence that may result in confiscation of property, including 
confiscation without a conviction’ within the meaning of Article 2(3) of 
Regulation 2018/1805 also include criminal proceedings concluded with a 
judgment of acquittal that includes an order to confiscate property as undue 
proceeds derived from another criminal offence, which is not the criminal offence 
of which the defendants were acquitted, and in whose commission the defendants 
were not involved, but rather persons against whom no indictment was brought. 
26 If that question is also answered in the affirmative, the referring court has further 
questions related to whether the rights enshrined in the Charter were respected in 
the proceedings during which the confiscation order was issued, as doubts in that 
regard have been raised by the appellant – D. 
26.1. Consequently, it should be stated that the Criminal Court of Appeal of the 
Republic of Croatia considers the principle of mutual recognition, and thus also 
Article 33(2) of Regulation 2018/1805, according to which the substantive reasons 
for issuing the confiscation order cannot be challenged before a court in the 
executing State, to be a cornerstone of judicial cooperation. 
26.2. However, the referring court is also mindful of the procedural safeguards of 
Directive 2014/42/EU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment in 
Joined Cases C-845/19 and C-863/19 (judgment of 21 October 2021, Okrazhna 
prokuratura – Varna, C-845/19 and C-863/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:864). 
26.3. All of this has been highlighted in the context of doubts concerning the 
meaning of the principle of mutual recognition, since under Article 19 of 
Regulation 2018/1805, it is only in exceptional situations that the executing 
authority can decide not to recognise a confiscation order on the grounds that it 
fails to comply with the rights set out in the Charter. 
27 Indeed, the Regional Court, Maribor, states in the grounds of the judgment that 
‘events that occurred several years later cannot result in a conviction’, only [for 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
15 
the court] to continue to deal with those events in relation to which it finds 
evidence of criminal offences of acting to the detriment of creditors and money 
laundering, which offences, however, involve different people. 
27.1. Moreover, it follows that the criminal offence of acting to the detriment of 
creditors was examined during the preliminary investigation, which, however, did 
not result in an indictment. 
27.2. In the present case, the person in charge at D., which was the beneficiary of 
the improperly obtained proceeds, participated in one hearing, although the 
appellant D. claims that on that occasion Mr [Z. Z.]. was questioned as a witness, 
which remains to be verified; he was certainly advised of the possibility of the 
shares being confiscated and about his right to submit evidence and ask questions 
in the proceedings. It follows that, on that occasion, Mr [Z. Z.]. was not advised of 
his right to a lawyer throughout the confiscation proceedings relating to the 
determination of the proceeds under Article 8 of Directive 2014/42/EU (see the 
Court’s judgment in Cases C-845/19 and C-863/19). 
27.3. Furthermore, at the time of his participation in the hearing on 27 January 
2020, the request concerning the confiscation of proceeds had not yet been 
submitted, since the public prosecutor only made such a request, as confirmed in 
the certificate, in his closing speech in May 2020. Accordingly, the court 
conducted the trial on the basis of the indictment brought in 2017, and Mr D. R. 
(director of D. until 2 July 2018) was also questioned as a witness during the 
proceedings. 
27.4. It follows from the above that the participation of D. in the proceedings, 
which presupposes its knowledge of the subject matter of the proceedings and 
their possible consequences, was based on: the fact that the shares were frozen in 
the case against the four defendants (who would later be acquitted); the fact that 
the company, through its lawyer, lodged an appeal against the order of the County 
Court, Zagreb, which recognised the freezing order (issued as an interim measure 
in the case against the four defendants); and the fact that in the proceedings 
against the four defendants the company’s representative was advised by the court 
of the possibility of the shares being confiscated and of his right to ask questions 
and submit evidence, before the prosecutor formally submitted the confiscation 
request. 
27.5. Moreover, the case file shows that D. as the [legal] person affected by the 
order, that is to say, the beneficiary of the undue proceeds, was only served with 
excerpts from the judgment of the Regional Court, Maribor, while in the view of 
the referring court, the entire judgment is an essential document (see Article 3(2) 
of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal 
proceedings with regard to the rights of suspected and accused persons), and thus 
the standards of access to an impartial court require that the entire judgment be 
served. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 10. 2023 – CASE C-8/24 
 
16  
27.6. Finally, it should be noted that the Regional Court, Maribor, stated that 
excerpts from the judgment were served on D., which did not appeal against that 
judgment. D., on the other hand, claims that it did not receive the judgment, and to 
that end requests that evidence be taken (proof of service and a handwriting 
expert’s report), which gives rise to the question of the scope of verification and 
consultation with the issuing authority in the context of the meaning of the 
principle of mutual recognition and Article 33 of Regulation 2018/1805, which 
stipulates that the substantive reasons for issuing the confiscation order cannot be 
challenged before a court in the executing State. 
28 In the light of the above, the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Republic of Croatia 
wonders whether it is contrary to Regulation 2018/1805, Article 1(2) thereof, and 
Article 47 of the Charter, to recognise a confiscation order issued in criminal 
proceedings in which an affected person, within the meaning of Article 2(10) of 
Regulation 2018/1805: 
- was not summoned to participate in all stages of the criminal proceedings; 
- was not advised of his or her right to a lawyer throughout the proceedings; 
- did not receive the full text of the judgment containing the confiscation order 
in a language he or she understood, but only excerpts from that judgment, and did 
not appeal against the judgment thus served. 
VII Questions referred for a preliminary ruling: 
I Does the term ‘proceedings in relation to a criminal offence that may result 
in confiscation of property, including confiscation without a conviction’ within 
the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regulation 2018/1805 also include criminal 
proceedings concluded with an acquittal? 
II Does the term ‘proceedings in relation to a criminal offence that may result 
in confiscation of property, including confiscation without a conviction’ within 
the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regulation 2018/1805 also include criminal 
proceedings concluded with a judgment of acquittal that includes an order to 
confiscate property as undue proceeds derived from another criminal offence, 
which is not the criminal offence of which the defendants were acquitted, and in 
whose commission the defendants were not involved, but rather persons against 
whom no indictment was brought? 
III Is it contrary to Regulation 2018/1805, Article 1(2) thereof, and Article 47 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to recognise a confiscation order issued in 
criminal proceedings in which an affected person, within the meaning of 
Article 2(10) of the regulation: 
- was not summoned to participate in all stages of the criminal proceedings; 
D D.O.O. COMPANY 
 
17 
- was not advised of his or her right to a lawyer throughout the proceedings; 
- did not receive the full text of the judgment containing the confiscation order 
in a language he or she understood, but only excerpts from that judgment, and did 
not appeal against the judgment thus served. 
Zagreb, 4 October 2023 
[…]