search

… There was therefore considered to be a real risk that the conviction was not handed down in a fair hearing by an and tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of the second paragraph of of the . 12. …

… The requirements of the second paragraph of of the 60. The guarantees of access to an and tribunal previously established by law laid down in the second paragraph of of the and, in particular, those which determine what constitutes a tribunal and how it is composed, represent the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. (29) 61. …

… It appears that the French court therefore concluded that there was a risk that the convicted person would serve a sentence which had not been imposed by an and tribunal previously established by law, within the meaning of the second paragraph of of the . 59. However, do those circumstances actually give rise to a real risk of infringement of the second paragraph of of the ? 1. …

… 19(1) TEU and of the []?’ …

… Court], [of the] Visoki prekršajni sud [High Misdemeanour Court] [or at] the meeting of a section of a Županijski sud [County Court] shall be binding on all the chambers or judges at second instance of that section or court” compatible with 19(1) TEU and of the []?’ …

… Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 October 2023, gives the following Judgment 1 These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’). 2 The requests have been made in three sets of proceedings. …

… 19(1), second subparagraph, TEU - of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - and court - Objective test of ) I. …

… That court therefore wonders whether national rules which allow the same court to be both judge and defendant in the same case meet the requirements of the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU for effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law and of the second paragraph of of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’) for an and court. 18. …

… That requirement, which is a general principle of EU law, (11) is today embedded in both the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU and of the , of which the referring court requested an interpretation. 26. …

… parties referred to in 23 of the Statute to submit observations in response to the Advocate General’s Opinion (order of 4 February 2000, Emesa Sugar, C-17/98, EU:C:2000:69, paragraph 2, and judgment of 9 June 2022, Préfet du Gers and Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, C-673/20, EU:C:2022:449, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). 29 Second, under the second paragraph of 252 TFEU, the Advocate General, acting with complete and , …

… issue in the main proceedings did not infringe 17 of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’). 27 In those circumstances, SIIB requests that a hearing be held so that the question of whether 17 of the is relevant to the present case may be the subject of an exchange of arguments. 28 In that regard, it must be noted, first, that the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Rules of Procedure make no provision for the interested …

… Article 56 TFEU must therefore be disregarded. 46 Furthermore, since it follows from the first subparagraph of Article 44(1) of Directive 2006/123 that that directive is inapplicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings, the question referred for a preliminary ruling must be examined in the light of Article 49 TFEU alone. In those circumstances, the Court holds that, by its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding …

… by an authority and, third, he was unable duly to present his arguments. …

… That approach, moreover, is in line with the case-law cited in paragraph 100 above. 114 The applicant’s first argument must therefore be rejected. 115 In addition, as far as the alleged breach of the right to respect for private life is concerned, enshrined, inter alia, in 7 of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’), which results from the disclosure of confidential or personal data, the Court observes that the applicant raises that argument with no further …

… That situation led to an apparently intentional delay in the Dignity at Work investigation procedure. 90 The EIB contends that, first, 4.3 of the Dignity at Work policy is not applicable in the present case, as referral of a case to the Investigations Division may be completely from a Dignity at Work procedure. …

… JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 10 July 2024 (*) (1) (Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Opposition of the ECB to the acquisition of qualifying holdings in a credit institution - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Direct concern - Inadmissibility in part - Reputation and professional competence of the proposed acquirer - Financial soundness - Compliance with prudential requirements - Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist …

… of the requires, in particular, that the Courts of the European Union ensure that the decision by which restrictive measures were adopted or maintained, which affects the person or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis. …

… He states, inter alia, that he cannot see why having been invited to a meeting with President Putin would mean that he supports or implements Russian actions or policies in Ukraine. 63 The Council disputes the merits of this plea in law. 64 According to settled case-law, the right to effective judicial protection affirmed in the third paragraph of of the requires that the person concerned must be able to ascertain the reasons upon which the decision taken in relation to him or …

… As to the contested acts, reference must be made to paragraphs 141 to 194 below, which deal with the plea in law alleging error of assessment on the part of the Council. 48 That said, it should be recalled that, in the context of the adoption of restrictive measures, the Council is under an obligation to observe the principle of sound administration, enshrined in 41 of the of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the ’), which, according to settled case-law, entails the …

… The applicant Government submitted that those “judges” could not be considered and . Nor could any “court” or “tribunal” over which they presided be considered to be a competent judicial authority established by law. Their appointment was an inducement to former Ukrainian officials to cooperate (or collaborate) with the Russian Federation. 61. …

… of 14, taken in conjunction with 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and 2 of Protocol No. 4 2. …

… (ii) Unlawful detention contrary to 5 . The applicant Government submitted that there had been a widespread campaign of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in violation of 5 during the period under consideration. The targets of such detentions were perceived opponents of the Russian “occupation” in general and members of the Crimean Tatar community in particular. 48. …

… of the . 53. …

… a general principle of EU law now enshrined in of the ’. (34) 65. …

… with applicable national provisions as well as with the requirements of an and tribunal previously established by law, thereby ensuring effective judicial protection as enshrined in the second subparagraph of 19(1) TEU, read in the light of 2 TEU and taking due account of of the . …

… protection made by an applicant, to whom another Member State has already granted such protection, on account of a serious risk that that applicant will be subjected, in that other Member State, to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of 4 of the , that authority is required to grant that applicant refugee status on the sole ground that he or she has already been granted refugee status by that other Member State or (ii) whether it may carry out a new, examination …

… 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 to reject as inadmissible an application for international protection with a view to the granting of refugee status in another Member State because living conditions in that [other] Member State would expose the applicant to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of 4 of the , must the second sentence of 3(1) of Regulation No 604/2013, the second sentence of 4(1) and 13 of Directive 2011/95 as well …

… is uncertain as to the legal consequences, in the event of a serious risk of infringement of 4 of the in the Member State that granted international protection, of the loss of the possibility for another Member State, to which a new application for international protection has been made, to reject that application as inadmissible under 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32. …