- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-281/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 April 2022 — G.K., B.O.D. GmbH, S.L.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0281
62022CN0281
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 318/23
(Case C-281/22)
(2022/C 318/32)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Accused and appellant: G.K., B.O.D. GmbH, S.L.
Other party to the proceedings: Austrian European Delegated Prosector
Questions referred
1.Must EU law, in particular the first subparagraph of Article 31(3) and Article 32 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 concerning the implementation of enhanced cooperation with a view to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of cross-border investigations in the event that a court must approve a measure to be carried out in the Member State of the supporting European Delegated Prosecutor, all material aspects, such as criminal liability, suspicion of a criminal offence, necessity and proportionality, must be examined?
2.Should the examination take into account whether the admissibility of the measure has already been examined by a court in the Member State of the European Delegated Prosecutor handling the case on the basis of the law of that Member State?
3.In the event that the first question is answered in the negative and/or the second question in the affirmative, to what extent must a judicial review take place in the Member State of the supporting European Delegated Prosecutor?
(1) OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1.
* * *
Language of the case: German.