Case T-509/24: Action brought on 1 October 2024 – Research Investments and Others v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date: 2024-10-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: criminal procedure, fraud against the EU, operation of the Institutions, public prosecution, public prosecutor's department








C_202407179EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/7179


9.12.2024






Action brought on 1 October 2024 – Research Investments and Others v European Public Prosecutor’s Office


(Case T-509/24)

(C/2024/7179)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicants: Research Investments s.r.o. (Zákolany, Czech Republic), Areál Zákolany s.r.o. (Zákolany), Simon Cihelník (Krupka, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Mašek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (represented by: L. De Matteis and E. Farhat, acting as Agents)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the three legal acts issued by the defendant on 1 August 2024 and 19 August 2024 in the form of opinions given in response to the calls to act of 1 August 2024 and 15 August 2024 addressed to the defendant under the second paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


find that the defendant infringed EU law in that, during the investigation stage and the stage of prosecution before the national court, it did not refrain from exercising its competence in accordance with Article 25(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, and that all the procedural acts undertaken by the defendant in the present case are thus invalid;










—


find that the defendant infringed EU law in that, during the prosecution of the applicants before the national court, it unlawfully failed to dismiss the case or discontinue the proceedings in accordance with Article 39 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and that the decision of the defendant to pursue the proceedings before the national court is therefore invalid.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, which constitutes a test for the material competence of the defendant:






—


Given that both sub-conditions of Article 25(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 are met, the defendant never acquired competence to prosecute the criminal conduct of which it accused the applicants and subsequently charged them with and it was required to refrain from exercising its competence.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 34 in conjunction with Article 39 and Article 25(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939:






—


Given the implicit fulfilment of both of the sub-conditions of the test for material competence set out in Article 25(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the defendant did not act in accordance with Article 25(3) of the regulation. The defendant thus breached EU law, first, by exercising its extensive competence in disregard of EU law, thus by commission, and, second, by omission, whereby the defendant did not carry out any competence test at all or refused to be guided by the result of the test in its procedural considerations. In the prosecution before the national court the defendant neither dismissed the case nor discontinued the proceedings in accordance with Article 39 of the regulation, even though it was required to do so owing to lack of competence.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 34 in conjunction with Articles 39 and 22(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939:






—


The starting point for determining criminal conduct affecting the financial interests of the European Union, and thus the competence of the defendant, depends on the date when the transposition into internal law has taken effect (Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939). In the Czech Republic that date is 1 December 2019, by means of Zákon č. 315/2019 Sb. (§ 260 trestního zákoníku) (Law No 315/2019 (Paragraph 260 of the Criminal Code)). The defendant did not and does not have competence to prosecute conduct affecting the financial interests of the European Union which arose before 1 December 2019 because there is no such conduct of the kind affecting the financial interests of the European Union that may be subject to prosecution by the defendant, in terms of Article 22(1) of the regulation. Nevertheless, the defendant is prosecuting the applicants for conduct which is said to have occurred between 2011 and 2021. The defendant has therefore infringed EU law since, in the prosecution before the national court, it failed to dismiss the case or discontinue the proceedings in the absence of competence, in accordance with Article 39 of the regulation, with the procedure under Article 34 being already excluded at that stage.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7179/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)