EN
13.3.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 94/5
2.
Article 6(a) of Directive 2016/680 and Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, if the person accused of an intentional offence subject to public prosecution refuses to cooperate voluntarily in the collection of the biometric and genetic data concerning him or her in order for them to be entered in a record, the criminal court having jurisdiction must authorise a measure enforcing their collection, without having the power to assess whether there are serious grounds for believing that the person concerned has committed the offence of which he or she is accused, provided that national law subsequently guarantees effective judicial review of the conditions for that accusation, from which the authorisation to collect those data arises. 3.
Article 10 of Directive 2016/680, read in conjunction with Article 4(1)(a) to (c) and Article 8(1) and (2) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the systematic collection of biometric and genetic data of any person accused of an intentional offence subject to public prosecution in order for them to be entered in a record, without laying down an obligation on the competent authority to verify whether and demonstrate that, first, their collection is strictly necessary for achieving the specific objectives pursued and, second, those objectives cannot be achieved by measures constituting a less serious interference with the rights and freedoms of the person concerned.
(1)
OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 — European Commission v Anthony Braesch and Others (Case C-284/21 P) (1) (Appeal — State aid — Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Restructuring aid — Banking sector — Preliminary examination stage — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Restructuring plan — Commitments given by the Member State concerned — Burden-sharing measures — Conversion of subordinated debts into equity — Bondholders — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Locus standi — Natural or legal person directly and individually concerned — Breach of the procedural rights of interested parties — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Article 108(2) TFEU — Concept of ‘parties concerned’ — Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Article 1(h) — Concept of ‘interested party’ — National measures taken into account by the European Commission — Inadmissibility of the action) (2023/C 94/04) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents) Other parties to the proceedings: Anthony Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (represented by: A. Champsaur, avocate, and by G. Faella, L. Prosperetti and M. Siragusa, avvocati)
Operative part of the judgment The Court: 1.
Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 February 2021, Braesch and Others v Commission (T-161/18, EU:T:2021:102); 2.
Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought at first instance by Mr Anthony Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP and Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) — Italy — New aid and amended restructuring plan of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena;