20

In those circumstances, the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Do the following legal provisions: – Article 325(1) TFEU which provides that the Member States must take measures that effectively afford protection against fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union, – Article 2(1) of the PFI Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1)(b) of that convention and with Article 2(1)(b) of Decision 2007/436, according to which every Member State is to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective punishment of VAT evasion, – the first and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter which guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal previously established by law, preclude national legislation, according to which evidence obtained through the deployment of “special investigation methods”, specifically through the interception of the telephone conversations of individuals subsequently charged with a VAT-related offence, cannot be used because that interception was ordered by a court that lacked jurisdiction, bearing in mind the following factors: – previously (between one and three months earlier), an application was made to intercept some of those telecommunications, and this was authorised by the same court which at that point still had jurisdiction; – an application for authorisation of the disputed interception of telecommunications (for the extension of the earlier interception of telecommunications and for the tapping of new telephone connections) was made to the same court when it no longer had jurisdiction because, immediately before that, its jurisdiction had been transferred to a different court; despite its lack of jurisdiction, the original court examined the substance of the application and granted the authorisation; – at a later point (about one month later), a fresh application was made to authorise the tapping of the same telephone connections which was granted by the court that now had jurisdiction; – none of the orders made actually contain any reasoning supporting them; – the statutory provision transferring jurisdiction was unclear and led to numerous contradictory court decisions, which resulted in the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation) delivering a binding interpretation decision about two years after the legal transfer of jurisdiction and after the interception of telecommunications in question; – the court examining the substance of the present case does not have jurisdiction to decide on applications for the authorisation of the deployment of special investigation methods (the interception of telecommunications); however, it does have jurisdiction to decide on the legality of any interception of telecommunications carried out, in particular to make a finding that an authorisation does not meet the statutory requirements, and thus to refuse to take into account evidence gathered following that authorisation; that power exists only if a valid order has been made authorising the interception of telecommunications; – the use of that evidence (the defendants’ telephone conversations, the interception of which was ordered by a court that had lost its jurisdiction) is of crucial importance to the resolution of the question of a person’s culpability as the leader of a criminal organisation formed for the purpose of committing tax offences covered by the [Law on value added tax, in the version in force at the material time,] and as the instigator of specific tax offences, in the knowledge that he may be found guilty and sentenced only if those telephone conversations can be used in evidence, and that, otherwise, he would have to be acquitted? (2) Does the judgment [which will be given in the case] Ognyanov (C‑614/14) apply to the present case?’