Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/455

(Case C-175/22, (1) BK (Reclassification of the offence))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/13/EU - Right to information in criminal proceedings - Article 6 - Right to information about the accusation - Article 6(4) - Changes in the information given - Amendment of the classification of the criminal offence - Obligation to inform the accused person in due time and to offer him or her the opportunity to put forward his or her arguments regarding the new envisaged classification - Effective exercise of the rights of the defence - Fairness of the proceedings - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings - Article 3 - Presumption of innocence - Article 7(2) - Right not to incriminate oneself - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Requirement that the criminal court or tribunal be impartial - Reclassification of the offence on the initiative of the criminal court or tribunal or on the basis of a proposal from the accused person)

(C/2024/455)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Party in the main criminal proceedings

with the participation of: Spetsializirana prokuratura

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings

must be interpreted as precluding national case-law which enables a court or tribunal ruling on the substance in a criminal case to use a legal classification of the acts at issue which differs from that initially used by the public prosecutor’s office without informing the accused person of the new envisaged classification in due time, at a point and under conditions which would enable him or her effectively to prepare his or her defence, and, accordingly, without offering that person the opportunity to exercise his or her rights of defence specifically and effectively with regard to that new classification. In that context, the fact that that classification cannot entail the application of a more severe penalty than the offence of which the person was initially accused is entirely irrelevant.

2.Articles 3 and 7 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, as well as the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of national legislation which enables a court or tribunal ruling on the substance in a criminal case to use, on its own initiative or in response to a suggestion from the accused person, a legal classification of the acts at issue which differs from that initially used by the public prosecutor’s office, provided that that court or tribunal has informed the accused person of the new envisaged classification in due time, at a point and under conditions which have enabled him or her effectively to prepare his or her defence, and has thus offered that person the opportunity to exercise his or her rights of defence specifically and effectively with regard to the new classification thus used.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/455/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

(1)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15