I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
C series
—
9.9.2024
(Case C-328/24 P)
(C/2024/5298)
Language of the case: Romanian
Appellant: Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși (represented by: A. Şandru, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Public Prosecutor’s Office
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
—set aside the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 February 2024 and declare void the decision of Permanent Chamber No 10 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) of 8 December 2022, in criminal case No I.000026/2022.
The main ground of appeal is the lack of analysis of the compatibility of Article 42 of the EPPO Regulation (1) with EU law. The General Court dismissed the action without explaining in detail the grounds of that conclusion, relying on the premiss that Article 42 constitutes a legitimate obstacle. However, the General Court did not examine in detail the arguments relating to the contradiction between that article and the EU Treaties.
The second ground of appeal is the failure of the General Court to rule on the appellant’s request to reserve its decision pending a ruling on the substance of the case.
Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5298/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *
Language of the case: Romanian