Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 May 2020 – UL and VM

(Case C‑709/18) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Articles 3 and 4 – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 47 and 48 – Public references to guilt – National court – Acceptance by order of the guilty plea of one of two co-accused for the offences stated in the indictment – Examination of the guilt of the second co-accused who pleaded not guilty – Conviction by the same court which accepted the guilty plea)

1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings – Directive 2016/343 – Public references to guilt – Decisions other than those on guilt – Meaning – Order issued by a court accepting the guilty plea of one of the accused persons in criminal proceedings – Included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2016/343, Art. 4(1)) (see para. 28)

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings – Directive 2016/343 – Public references to guilt – Respect for the presumption of innocence – Criminal proceedings instituted against two persons for offences allegedly committed in concert – Order issued by a court accepting the admission by one of the accused persons of his guilt – Order referring to the second person, who did not admit guilt, as co-perpetrator of the alleged offences – Subsequent conviction of the latter, by the same court, after having conducted a taking of the evidence relating to the facts concerning her – Whether permissible – Conditions (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47, second para., and 48; European Parliament and Council Directive 2016/343, Recital 16, Arts 3 and 4(1)) (see paras 29-31, 34, 35, operative part)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions submitted without sufficient information concerning the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 39, 40, 42-44)

4. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Limits – Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 39, 41, 44)

Operative part

Articles 3 and 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read in conjunction with recital 16 of that directive and the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national court, first of all, from accepting, in the context of criminal proceedings brought against two persons, by order, the guilty plea of the first person to offences stated in the indictment allegedly committed together with the second person who has not pleaded guilty and, thereafter, from deciding, after taking evidence relating to what the second person is alleged to have done, on the guilt of that person, provided that, first, the reference to the second person as co-perpetrator of the alleged offences is necessary to the characterisation of the legal liability of the person who pleaded guilty and, secondly, that order and/or the indictment to which it refers clearly state that the guilt of that second person has not been legally established and will be the subject of separate taking of evidence and a separate judgment.

( 1 ) OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.