CELEX: 62016CA0310
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-310/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences — Principle of effectiveness — Taking of evidence — Interception of telecommunications — Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction — Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence — Provisions of national law — Prohibition)

11.3.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 93/2
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others
      (Case C-310/16) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests - Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences - Principle of effectiveness - Taking of evidence - Interception of telecommunications - Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction - Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence - Provisions of national law - Prohibition))
      (2019/C 93/02)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian
      
         Referring court
      
      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad
      
         Parties in the main proceedings
      
      Petar Dzivev, Galina Angelova, Georgi Dimov, Milko Velkov
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 1(1)(b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted to the effect that, in the light of the principle of effectiveness of the prosecution of value added tax (VAT) offences, they do not preclude a national court from applying a national provision excluding, from a prosecution, evidence such as the interception of telecommunications requiring prior judicial authorisation, where that authorisation was given by a court that lacked jurisdiction, in a situation in which that evidence alone is capable of proving that the offences in question were committed.
      
         (1)  OJ C 310, 29.8.2016.