Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2024:823
Date: 2024-10-04
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Police cooperation;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Summary  C-767/22 – 1 
Case C-767/22 
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: 
12 December 2022 
Referring court: 
Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
8 December 2022 
Appellants before the Satversmes tiesa: 
1Dream OU, 
DS, 
DL, 
VS, 
JG 
Respondent: 
Latvijas Republikas Saeima 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Assessment of the compatibility of Article 627(4) and (5) of the Kriminālprocesa 
likums (Law on Criminal Procedure) with the first sentence of Article 92 of the 
Latvijas Republikas Satversme (Constitution of the Republic of Latvia). 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, the referring court seeks to ascertain, first, whether 
the legislation on illegally obtained assets at issue in the main proceedings falls 
within the scope of Directive 2014/42/EU and Framework Decision 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-767/22 
 
2  
2005/212/JHA; second, whether that legislation is to be considered compatible 
with the right to a fair trial enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union and Directive 2014/42/EU; and, third, whether, in the event that 
that legislation should be considered incompatible with European Union law, its 
legal effects may be maintained during the period of application of the legislation. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
‘1. Does national legislation pursuant to which a national court rules on the 
confiscation of the proceeds of crime in separate proceedings relating to the 
illegally obtained assets, which are separated from the main criminal proceedings 
before it is established that a criminal offence has been committed and before 
anyone has been found guilty of that offence, and which also provides for 
confiscation based on materials taken from the criminal case file, fall within the 
scope of Directive 2014/42, in particular Article 4 thereof, and Framework 
Decision 2005/212, in particular Article 2 thereof? 
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the legislation on 
access to materials in the case file in proceedings relating to illegally obtained 
assets to be considered compatible with the right to a fair trial enshrined in 
Article 47 of the Charter and in Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42? 
3. Is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as 
precluding the constitutional court of a Member State, which is seised of an action 
for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought against national legislation which 
has been held to be incompatible with European Union law, from ruling that the 
principle of legal certainty is applicable and that the legal effects of that 
legislation are to be maintained in relation to the period during which it was in 
force?’ 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’): first 
paragraph and second paragraph, first sentence, of Article 47. 
Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation 
of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (‘the Framework 
Decision’): recital 10 and Articles 1, 2 and 4. 
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’): recitals 9, 15, 22, 38 and 40 and 
Articles 1(1), 2(4), 3, 4(2) and 8(1) and (8). 
1DREAM 
 
3 
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 
2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (‘Directive 2012/13’): 
Articles 1 and 7(4). 
Case-law of the Court of Justice 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 March 2020, ‘Agro In 2001’, C-234/18, 
EU:C:2020:221, paragraphs 56 and 57. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 October 2021, Komisia za protivodeystvie 
na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo, C-319/19, 
EU:C:2021:883, paragraphs 36, 37 and 41. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2021, Okrazhna prokuratura – 
Varna, C-845/19 and C-863/19, EU:C:2021:864, paragraph 75. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 June 2021, Latvijas Republikas Saeima 
(Penalty points), C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraphs 132 and 133. 
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 
Grand Chamber, 28 June 2018, G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, application 
No 1828/06, paragraphs 211, 223 to 225 and 233. 
Judgment of the ECtHR of 12 May 2015, Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, 
application No 36862/05, paragraphs 102 and 103. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Latvijas Republikas Satversme (Constitution of the Republic of Latvia): first 
sentence of Article 92, which provides that everyone is entitled to defend their 
legitimate rights and interests before an impartial court. 
Krimināllikums (Criminal Code): Articles 70.10, 70.11(1), 70.13(1), as in force 
during the period 1 September 2018 to 2 November 2022, and Article 195(3). 
Kriminālprocesa likums (Law on Criminal Procedure): Articles 626 to 628, 629(2) 
and (4), 630(1), 631(1), included in Chapter 59 under the heading ‘Proceedings 
relating to illegally obtained assets’, as in force during the period 1 September 
2018 to 2 November 2022. 
Article 627(4) and (5) of the Law on Criminal Procedure (‘the provisions at 
issue’) provided: 
‘(4) Materials in the case file for proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets 
shall be covered by the secrecy of the investigation and may be consulted by the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-767/22 
 
4  
person directing the proceedings, the prosecutor and the court seised of the case. 
The persons to whom Article 628 hereof refers may access the materials in the 
case file with the authorisation of the person directing the proceedings and to the 
extent that that person stipulates. 
(5) A decision of the person directing the proceedings refusing a request for 
access to the materials in the case file may be the subject of an appeal to the 
district (city) court hearing the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets. 
The court shall adopt a decision allowing or dismissing the request in whole or in 
part. No appeal may be brought against that decision. In order that the court may 
decide whether access to the materials in the case file jeopardises the fundamental 
rights of other persons or the public interest or impedes the attainment of the 
objective of the criminal proceedings, that court may request the materials in the 
criminal case file and examine those materials.’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The provisions at issue form part of the legislation which governs proceedings 
relating to illegally obtained assets, laid down in Title 11, Chapter 59 of the Law 
on Criminal Procedure. Under that legislation, in order to rule in a timely fashion 
on any property issues which may arise in the preliminary stage of the criminal 
proceedings and in the interests of procedural economy, the person directing the 
proceedings may remove the materials relating to illegally obtained assets from 
the criminal case file and institute proceedings for a declaration that those assets 
have come from illegal activities. In that situation, the person directing the 
proceedings will send those materials to a court, which will decide whether the 
assets were obtained illegally. If the court considers that the assets were obtained 
illegally, it will decide what is to happen to them, including whether they are to be 
confiscated. 
2 In Latvia, a number of criminal proceedings for alleged large-scale money 
laundering were brought against the parties who have lodged the appeal before the 
Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court, Latvia): 1Dream OU, DS, DL, VS and JG. 
All those proceedings are still at the investigation stage. In each, the funds of 
those appellants have been seized and proceedings have been initiated for a 
declaration that those assets are the proceeds of criminal activities. 
3 In the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, the Rīgas apgabaltiesas 
Krimināllietu tiesas kolēģija (Regional Court, Riga (Criminal Law Division), 
Latvia) ruled that the assets of 1Dream OU had been obtained illegally and 
decided to confiscate those assets and transfer them to the State budget. The 
proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets in respect of DS, DL, VS and JG 
are currently stayed as a result of a number of decisions adopted by different 
courts. 
4 Each of those appellants before the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) 
requested the person directing the corresponding proceedings relating to illegally 
1DREAM 
 
5 
obtained assets if they could access the materials in the case file concerned. Those 
requests were allowed in part by decisions of the persons directing the 
proceedings, permitting the appellants a certain amount of access to the materials 
in the case file for the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets. The 
appellants before the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) appealed against the 
decisions of the persons directing the proceedings, which were therefore 
examined. 
5 As a result of the action for a declaration of unconstitutionality brought by the 
appellants before the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court; the referring court), 
that court has been seised of the question of whether the provisions at issue are 
compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic 
of Latvia (‘the Constitution’). 
The main arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The appellants before the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) submit that the 
provisions at issue are incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the 
Constitution, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, Article 8(1) and (8) of 
Directive 2014/42 and Article 4 of the Framework Decision. 
7 The appellants before the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) assert that, for 
the purpose of protecting the secrecy of the investigation, the provisions at issue 
provided that it was possible to refuse access to the materials in the case file 
which is the basis for the findings of the person directing the proceedings 
regarding the criminal origin of the assets. Accordingly, the appellants before the 
Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) argue that they were at a disadvantage vis-
à-vis the person directing the proceedings. In the appellants’ submission, it would 
have been possible to ensure the secrecy of the investigation in other ways, for 
example, by providing the person connected to the assets with all the materials in 
the case file but first of all anonymising those materials and warning that person 
that disclosure of the information would lead to criminal responsibility, or 
imposing procedural penalties on that person in the event that the course of the 
criminal proceedings is impeded. The appellants contend that it is not possible to 
refuse to allow a person access to the materials in the case file on the basis of a 
hypothetical risk that the criminal proceedings may be impeded. 
8 The appellants submit that Directive 2014/42 is applicable, pursuant to 
Article 4(2) thereof, to all proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets and that 
the owners of such assets are entitled to the guarantees laid down in Article 8 of 
that directive. In their view, use of the expression ‘at least’ in Article 4(2) of 
Directive 2014/42 makes clear that ‘illness or absconding of the … accused 
person’ is only one of the instances in which it is possible to carry out confiscation 
in the absence of a criminal conviction and that those instances are not listed 
exhaustively. The appellants submit that the scope of Directive 2014/42 also 
includes other instances in which, ‘for objective reasons, the transfer of criminal 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-767/22 
 
6  
proceedings to the courts in the near future (within a reasonable period) is not 
possible or may give rise to substantial unjustified costs’, as provided for in 
Article 626(1) of the Law on Criminal Procedure. 
9 The appellants before the Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court) draw attention 
to the fact that, unlike the Bulgarian legislation on which the Court of Justice 
ruled in Case C-319/19, proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets in Latvia 
are not civil proceedings and are instead instituted, based on all the evidence 
available in a criminal case, before a finding of a criminal offence and before 
anyone has been found guilty of that offence. In that connection, in Latvia, the use 
of confiscation is linked to the commission of a criminal offence, since the 
proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets are based on evidence that has 
been drawn from the main criminal proceedings. 
10 The institution which adopted the provisions at issue, the Latvian Parliament, 
argues that those provisions are compatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of 
the Constitution.  
11 The Latvian Parliament states that the legislation on criminal procedure relating to 
illegally obtained assets was framed in such a way that, before the trial, the person 
directing the proceedings would provide the person connected to the assets with a 
copy of the decision to institute those proceedings, setting out the reasons for 
doing so. In addition, that decision would include a detailed description of the 
information contained in the case file and the reasoning on which the belief of the 
person directing the proceedings that the origin of the assets at issue was unlawful, 
or that those assets were linked to a criminal offence, was based. 
12 The Latvian Parliament points out that the legislature provided in the provisions at 
issue that the person connected to the assets would be entitled to access the 
materials in the case file for the proceedings relating to the illegally obtained 
assets. However, the person directing the proceedings, taking into account the fact 
that the materials in the case file are protected by the secrecy of the investigation, 
was first of all required to assess the request of the person concerned to consult 
the file and to provide that person with the opportunity to consult those materials 
to the extent necessary in the specific case in order to ensure compliance with the 
principle of equality of arms of the parties to the proceedings while at the same 
time safeguarding the secrecy of the investigation. The person directing the 
proceedings has a margin of discretion but is also under an obligation to conduct a 
thorough assessment of the circumstances of each case. The person directing the 
proceedings was required to justify their decision by weighing up the interests of 
the persons involved in the case and the interests of the criminal proceedings in 
question and the smooth progress of those proceedings. The Latvian Parliament 
contends that the rules laid down in the provisions at issue were flexible enough to 
enable all those interests to be reconciled in each case. 
13 The Latvian Parliament adds that the legislature had ensured that persons 
connected to the assets had the right to appeal to the courts against any decisions 
1DREAM 
 
7 
of the person directing the proceedings that were unfavourable to them. 
Accordingly, the Latvian Parliament argues that the legislature also guaranteed 
judicial scrutiny of compliance with a fair balance between the need to guarantee 
observance of the principle of equality of arms between the parties to proceedings 
and the need to safeguard the secrecy of the investigation. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The case-law of the referring court recognises that, for the purposes of 
establishing the content of national legal provisions and applying those provisions, 
it is necessary take into account European Union law which strengthens 
democracy and the interpretation of that law in the case-law of the Court of 
Justice. 
15 The provisions at issue form part of the legislation which governs proceedings 
relating to illegally obtained assets. It is apparent from the case-law of the 
referring court that, in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, persons 
connected to those assets are guaranteed the right to a fair trial, enshrined in the 
first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution. A fair trial includes, inter alia, the 
principle of equality of arms between the parties to the proceedings and the right 
to be heard. Compliance with the principle of equality of arms between the parties 
in proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets is linked, inter alia, to the right 
of the persons concerned to access the materials in the case file relating to those 
proceedings. However, in order to achieve the aim of the criminal proceedings, it 
is necessary to guarantee that the secrecy of the investigation in proceedings 
relating to illegally obtained assets will be protected. That is necessary to avoid 
jeopardising the conduct of the criminal proceedings and to ensure the effective 
exercise of the fundamental rights by other persons. 
16 In order to determine whether the provisions at issue are compatible with the first 
sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution, the referring court must examine 
whether those provisions ensure a fair balance between the principle of equality of 
arms between the parties to proceedings and the protection of the secrecy of the 
investigation. In particular, it is necessary to assess whether the legislature was 
authorised to adopt a legal provision pursuant to which the person directing the 
proceedings may adopt a decision prohibiting the person connected to the assets 
from accessing certain materials in the case file for the proceedings relating to 
illegally obtained assets and which provides that the courts have the power to 
review the validity of such a decision. Having regard to the fact that the provisions 
at issue form part of the legislation governing proceedings relating to the 
confiscation of proceeds of crime, Article 47 of the Charter, Directive 2014/42 
and the Framework Decision, which are intended to ensure that all the Member 
States have effective laws governing the confiscation of proceeds of crime, are 
relevant to that assessment. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-767/22 
 
8  
17 The referring court takes the view that the offences at issue in the criminal 
proceedings, which are separate from the proceedings relating to illegally obtained 
assets, come within the offences covered by the legislation to which Article 3 of 
Directive 2014/42 refers and, therefore, fall within the material scope of that 
directive. Furthermore, the punishment laid down for those offences under the 
Criminal Code is a prison sentence of between three and 12 years. 
18 The Court of Justice has held that Directive 2014/42, like the Framework Decision 
to which it refers, is a legal act which requires Member States to adopt minimum 
common rules on the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in 
order to facilitate the mutual recognition of confiscation decisions. Directive 
2014/42 does not govern the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds 
resulting from illegal activities ordered by a court in a Member State in the 
context of or following proceedings that do not concern the finding of one or more 
criminal offences or do not immediately follow such a finding. Such confiscation 
falls outside the scope, in fact, of the minimum rules laid down by that directive 
and the rules governing it fall within the scope of the power of the Member States, 
referred to in recital 22 of that directive, to provide more extensive powers in their 
national law (see judgments of 19 March 2020, C-234/18, paragraphs 56 to 57, 
and of 28 October 2021, C-319/19, paragraphs 36 to 37 and 41). Accordingly, the 
referring court must examine whether Directive 2014/42, like the Framework 
Decision to which it refers, is applicable to the provisions on proceedings relating 
to illegally obtained assets contained in Chapter 59 of the Law on Criminal 
Procedure. 
19 The provisions at issue are included in Chapter 59 of the Law on Criminal 
Procedure, relating to the procedure for a judicial declaration that assets were 
illegally obtained. Proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets are separate 
and distinct proceedings and the court’s decision is adopted before the final 
judgment of the court in the criminal proceedings. The legislature’s objective in 
separating the examination of property issues into a special procedure 
(proceedings in rem) is the timely and effective resolution of any property issues 
which may arise in criminal proceedings. The main feature of that special 
procedure is that it does not establish a person’s guilt but rather decides on a 
single question: whether the origin of the assets is illegal or those assets are 
connected to a criminal offence. Therefore, under the Latvian legislation, 
proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets are not based on a criminal 
conviction. 
20 Accordingly, Directive 2014/42, like the Framework Decision to which it refers, 
may be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to the provisions on 
proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets contained in Chapter 59 of the 
Law on Criminal Procedure, since, in such proceedings, a declaration that assets 
were illegally obtained is unconnected to a finding of one or more criminal 
offences and does not immediately follow such proceedings either. In fact, the 
judicial decision concerned declares that the assets were illegally obtained before 
1DREAM 
 
9 
any finding that a criminal offence was committed and before anyone has been 
found guilty of that offence. 
21 The European Court of Human Rights, when examining whether confiscation in 
the absence of a criminal conviction equates to punishment within the meaning of 
Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms, has ruled that the starting point for conducting such an 
assessment is whether confiscation is ordered following a decision in which the 
person concerned is found to be guilty of committing a criminal offence. 
However, other factors are also involved in that assessment, such as the character 
and purpose of the proceedings and scale of the confiscation, and the nature of 
those proceedings as defined in national law and the detailed rules for its 
application. The classification of those proceedings in national law is not decisive. 
22 In accordance with the Latvian legislation, the materials in the case file for the 
proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets may be separated from the 
materials in the criminal case file at the investigation stage. The materials in the 
case file for the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets are protected by 
the secrecy of the investigation and may be consulted by the person connected to 
the assets to the extent determined by the person directing the proceedings and, 
where that person’s decision is challenged, by the court. Although proceedings 
relating to illegally obtained assets resolve property issues, the full disclosure of 
evidence at a time when the investigation in the criminal proceedings is still 
underway may compromise the public interest in detecting criminal offences and 
identifying the guilty party and undermine the safety and interests of the persons 
involved. Therefore, even though proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets 
are separate and distinct proceedings, in view of the connection between the 
materials in the case file for those proceedings and the criminal proceedings to 
which the investigation relates, the right of the person connected to those assets to 
access the materials in the case file is limited. 
23 In its judgments in Cases C-234/18 and C-319/19, the Court of Justice examined 
the scope of Directive 2014/42 in accordance with Article 4(1) thereof. However, 
Article 4(2) of Directive 2014/42 provides that, in certain circumstances, that 
directive is also applicable in cases where criminal proceedings have been 
initiated regarding a criminal offence but there has been no criminal conviction in 
those proceedings. No case-law of the Court of Justice exists in relation to that 
provision. 
24 It can be inferred from that provision, in conjunction with Article 2(4) of Directive 
2014/42, that Directive 2014/42 is also applicable, in certain circumstances, to 
proceedings regarding the confiscation of proceeds of crime which do not concern 
a finding of one or more criminal offences or which do not immediately follow 
proceedings of that kind, that is, the confiscation of proceeds of crime in the 
absence of a criminal conviction. Furthermore, the wording of Article 4(2) of 
Directive 2014/42 may also indicate, inter alia, that the reasons mentioned therein 
why confiscation may not be possible are not exhaustive. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-767/22 
 
10  
25 Accordingly, in the case before the referring court, the interpretation of Directive 
2014/42 and of the Framework Decision is liable to lead to divergent conclusions 
regarding the question of whether the special confiscation procedure laid down in 
Chapter 59 of the Law on Criminal Procedure falls within the Member States’ 
competence, as referred to in recital 22 of Directive 2014/42, to provide for more 
extensive powers in their national law, and of whether, as a consequence, those 
legislative acts are not applicable to such a procedure.  
26 Although the Court of Justice has interpreted Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/42 
and Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision on a number of occasions, neither of 
those legislative acts has to date been interpreted in relation to proceedings 
regarding the confiscation of illegally obtained assets, which are provided for in 
national law, are not conducted in the context of civil proceedings and are initiated 
on the basis of a body of evidence existing in criminal proceedings before it is 
found that a criminal offence has been committed and before anyone is found 
guilty of that offence. As is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice 
examined above, the correct interpretation and application of Directive 2014/42 
and the Framework Decision is not, in the light of their aim of improving the 
confiscation of assets in criminal proceedings within the European Union, so 
obvious as to leave no room for reasonable doubt regarding the scope of those 
legislative acts. 
27 If the rules on the confiscation of illegally obtained assets laid down in Chapter 59 
of the Law on Criminal Procedure fall within the scope of Directive 2014/42 and 
the Framework Decision to which it refers, the Member States have an obligation 
to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that persons affected by the measures 
provided for in that directive are entitled to an effective remedy and a fair trial to 
safeguard their rights. No settled case-law of the Court of Justice exists on the 
question of the application of the guarantees contained in Directive 2014/42 to the 
right of access to materials in the case file. 
28 Recital 38 of Directive 2014/42 states that that directive respects the fundamental 
rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter and should be 
implemented in accordance with those rights and principles. For its part, the first 
sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter provides that 
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an 
independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. 
29 In accordance with recital 40 of Directive 2014/42, the directive should be 
implemented taking account of the provisions of Directive 2012/13. In that 
connection, Article 7(4) of Directive 2012/13 provides for situations in which 
access to certain materials in the case file may be refused. Accordingly, if 
Directive 2014/42 were applicable to the special confiscation procedure at issue in 
the main proceedings, the assessment of the procedural rights of persons 
connected to the assets would have to take account, inter alia, of Article 7 of 
Directive 2012/13 as regards the right of access to materials in the case file. 
1DREAM 
 
11 
30 In accordance with the provisions at issue in the main proceedings, it is possible to 
limit the right of the person connected to the assets to access materials in the case 
file for the proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets, in the light of the 
threat that this may pose to the fundamental rights of other persons, the public 
interest or the possibility of achieving the aim of the criminal proceedings. 
Accordingly, the referring court is uncertain whether, in the event that the 
provisions at issue in the main proceedings fall within the scope of the EU 
legislation referred to, those national provisions are compatible with the right to a 
fair trial pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter and Article 8(1) of Directive 
2014/42. 
31 The referring court also asks the Court of Justice to address the question of the 
legal effects of the provisions at issue during their period of application. 
32 Since it entered into force on 1 October 2005, the Law on Criminal Procedure has 
included provisions permitting the person directing the proceedings to remove 
from the criminal case file materials relating to illegally obtained assets and to 
institute proceedings in relation to those assets in the interests of the timely 
resolution of any property issues which have arisen in the investigation stage of 
the criminal proceedings and in the interests of procedural economy. The 
provisions at issue in the main proceedings were in force during the period 
1 September 2018 to 2 November 2022. If, in the main proceedings, the 
provisions at issue are held to be incompatible with the requirements laid down in 
the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution, the Charter, Directive 2014/42 
and the Framework Decision, the referring court should give a ruling on the point 
at which the provisions at issue ceased to be effective. However, the provisions at 
issue in the main proceedings are no longer in force. 
33 In its case-law, the Court of Justice has held that it is only exceptionally that the 
Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the 
EU legal order, be moved to restrict for any person concerned the opportunity of 
relying on a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling into question 
legal relationships established in good faith. Two essential criteria must be 
fulfilled before such a limitation can be imposed, namely that those concerned 
should have acted in good faith and that there should be a risk of serious 
difficulties. 
34 Such a restriction may be allowed only in the actual judgment ruling upon the 
interpretation sought. Indeed, there must necessarily be a single occasion when a 
decision is made on the temporal effects of the requested interpretation which the 
Court gives of a provision of EU law. The principle that a restriction may be 
allowed only in the actual judgment ruling upon that interpretation guarantees the 
equal treatment of the Member States and of other persons subject to EU law, and 
fulfils, at the same time, the requirements arising from the principle of legal 
certainty. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-767/22 
 
12  
35 The referring court believes that, in the main proceedings, it may be deemed 
significant that the confiscation of illegally obtained assets is carried out to protect 
an important public interest and is aimed at safeguarding the principle of the rule 
of law. The European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged that the purpose 
of confiscation is to prevent the possibility of unjust enrichment as a result of 
criminal offences. Even where a person has managed to avoid being found guilty 
in criminal proceedings, criminal acts must not secure financial benefits. 
36 The legal relationships which would be affected by a definitive judgment of the 
referring court are numerous. If the illegally obtained assets must not be returned 
to their owner or legitimate holder, they will be confiscated for the benefit of the 
State and the funds will be transferred to the State budget. Thus, the provisions at 
issue are closely linked to the State budget and the planning of that budget and 
affect the whole economy. Accordingly, a declaration that the provisions 
concerned were invalid in the past may have negative consequences for the 
stability of the State budget and undermine legal certainty. 
37 Legal stability is an essential component of the principle of legal certainty, which 
requires, inter alia, not only legal proceedings which are provided for by law but 
also a legally sustainable outcome to those proceedings. The provisions at issue 
were considered to be lawful and, while they were in force, the State authorities 
applied them in all proceedings relating to illegally obtained assets. 
38 In the light of the foregoing, the referring court considers that, in order to give a 
ruling on the main proceedings, it is necessary to determine whether, in the event 
that the provisions at issue are found not comply with the requirements laid down 
in the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution, the Charter, Directive 
2014/42 and the Framework Decision, the principles of legal certainty and of the 
primacy of European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the 
circumstances of the main proceedings bring to light considerations in accordance 
with which it was possible to apply those provisions while they were in force and 
it is possible to maintain the legal effects of their application.