Case C-3/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against AB, CE, ‘MM investīcijas’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Member of an organ of the European Central Bank — Governor of a national central bank of a Member State — Immunity from criminal proceedings — Indictment connected with activities carried out in the course of employment within the Member State)
Date: 2021-11-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, Protocol (EU), central bank, criminal proceedings, decision-making body (EU), member of the European Central Bank








C_2022051EN.01000502.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against AB, CE, ‘MM investīcijas’ SIA
(Case C-3/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Member of an organ of the European Central Bank - Governor of a national central bank of a Member State - Immunity from criminal proceedings - Indictment connected with activities carried out in the course of employment within the Member State)
(2022/C 51/06)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas rajona tiesa

Parties in the main proceedings

AB, CE, ‘MM investīcijas’ SIA
LR Ģenerālprokuratūras Krimināltiesiskā departamenta Sevišķi svarīgu lietu izmeklēšanas nodaļa

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 22 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in the light of Article 130 TFEU and Article 7 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State enjoys the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union for acts performed by him or her in his or her official capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank.










2.


Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the governor of a central bank of a Member State continues, in respect of acts performed in his or her official capacity, to enjoy the immunity from legal proceedings provided for in Article 11(a) of that protocol after he or she has ceased to hold office.










3.


Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 17 and 22 of that protocol, must be interpreted as meaning that the national authority responsible for the criminal proceedings, that is to say, depending on the stage of the proceedings, the authority responsible for criminal prosecutions or the competent criminal court, has the competence to assess, in the first place, whether the offence potentially committed by the governor of a national central bank, in his or her capacity as a member of an organ of the European Central Bank, is an act of that governor carried out in the performance of his or her duties within that organ, but in the event of doubt it is required, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, to request the opinion of the European Central Bank and to comply with the latter. Conversely, it is for the European Central Bank alone to assess, when it receives an application for waiver of that governor’s immunity, whether such a waiver of immunity is contrary to the interests of the European Union, subject to the potential review of that assessment by the Court of Justice.










4.


Article 11(a) of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the immunity from legal proceedings for which it provides does not preclude the criminal prosecution in its entirety, including investigative measures, the gathering of evidence and service of the indictment. Nevertheless, if, at the stage of the investigations conducted by the national authorities and before the court is seised, it is established that the person under investigation may enjoy immunity from legal proceedings in respect of the acts which are the subject of the criminal prosecution, it is for those authorities to request a waiver of immunity from the institution of the European Union concerned. That immunity does not preclude evidence gathered during the investigation from being used in other judicial proceedings.










5.


Article 11(a) and Article 17 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that immunity from legal proceedings does not apply where the beneficiary of that immunity is implicated in criminal proceedings in respect of acts which were not performed in the context of the duties which he or she carries out on behalf of an institution of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.