- 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-852/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2014/41/EU — European Investigation Order in criminal matters — Article 14 — Legal remedies — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State — Decision ordering searches, seizures and a hearing of a witness by videoconference)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0852
62019CA0852
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
10.1.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 11/3
(Case C-852/19) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2014/41/EU - European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Article 14 - Legal remedies - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Absence of legal remedies in the issuing Member State - Decision ordering searches, seizures and a hearing of a witness by videoconference)
(2022/C 11/03)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, read in conjunction with Article 24(7) of that directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which has issued a European Investigation Order that does not provide for any legal remedy against the issuing of a European Investigation Order, the purpose of which is the carrying out of searches and seizures as well as the hearing of a witness by videoconference.
2.Article 6 of Directive 2014/41, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(3) [of the Treaty on European Union], must be interpreted as precluding the issuing, by the competent authority of a Member State, of a European Investigation Order, the purpose of which is the carrying out of searches and seizures as well as the hearing of a witness by videoconference, where the legislation of that Member State does not provide any legal remedy against the issuing of such a European Investigation Order.
(1) OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.