EN
3.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/21
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea: the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by contradictory reasoning, a denaturation of evidence, and an error of law in the application of the legal standard for assessing if there is an overriding public interest that can justify disclosure within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Second plea: the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by insufficient reasoning as regards the rejection of the existence of an overriding public interest.
(1)
OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ekonomisko lietu tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 April 2023 — criminal proceedings against A, B, C, D, F, E, G, SIA AVVA, SIA Liftu alianse (Case C-255/23, AVVA and Others) (2023/C 235/26) Language of the case: Latvian Referring court Ekonomisko lietu tiesa Criminal proceedings against A, B, C, D, F, E, G, SIA AVVA, SIA Liftu alianse Questions referred 1.
Do Articles 1(1), 6(1)(a) and 24(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2014/41 (1) permit legislation of a Member State according to which a person residing in a different Member State may, without a European investigation order being issued, participate by videoconference, as an accused person, in judicial proceedings, where the accused person is not being heard in that phase of the proceedings, that is to say, where no evidence is being gathered, provided the person directing the proceedings in the Member State in which the case is being tried is able, by technical means, to verify the identity of the person in the other Member State and provided that person’s rights of the defence and assistance by an interpreter are ensured? 2.
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, could the consent of the person who is to be heard constitute an independent or supplementary criterion or prerequisite for that person to participate by videoconference in the judicial proceedings in question, where no evidence is being gathered in that phase of the proceedings, if the person directing the proceedings in the Member State in which the case is being tried is able, by technical means, to verify the identity of the person who is in the other Member State and provided that person’s rights of the defence and assistance by an interpreter are ensured?
(1)
Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 8 May 2023 by the Republic of Bulgaria against the judgment of the General Court, delivered on 8 March 2023 in Case T-235/21, Republic of Bulgaria v European Commission (Case C-294/23 P) (2023/C 235/27) Language of the case: Bulgarian Parties Appellant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Mitova and S. Ruseva, acting as Agents)