Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/6636

11.11.2024

(Case C-541/24, Naltov)

(C/2024/6636)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SQ

Questions referred

1.Is Article 47 read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the General Data Protection Regulation (‘the GDPR’) to be interpreted as meaning that a lawyer who does not represent any of the parties in a particular case may be granted unrestricted access to the files in that case solely by virtue of being a lawyer?

2.Is Article 47 read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that a person who is neither a lawyer of a party or himself or herself a party to a particular case must always demonstrate a legitimate interest in order to obtain access to the files in that case?

3.Is Article 47 read in conjunction with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and Article 6(1)(a) GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the consent of all parties to a case is always required in order for file access to be granted to a person who is neither a lawyer of a party or himself or herself a party in that case?

4.Are Article 47 of the Charter and Article 19 TEU to be interpreted as meaning that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against a judge who granted file access in a particular case to a person who is neither a party to nor a lawyer in that case:

(a)before a provision of national law was declared incompatible with EU law

(b)after a provision of national law was declared incompatible with EU law?

5.Are Article 47 of the Charter and Article 19 TEU to be interpreted as meaning that a national court may refuse to follow the instructions of another national court which is examining the legality of an administrative act governing the conduct of proceedings before the first-mentioned court, where the first-mentioned national court has doubts as to the compatibility of a national rule with EU law and considers that the contested administrative act is compatible with EU law?

6.Is Article 19(1) TEU read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter (courts/tribunals shall be independent and impartial) to be interpreted as meaning that all EU judges must comply with uniform harmonised minimum ethical standards with respect to their conduct and, in particular, the principle of data protection (confidentiality and professional secrecy)?

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

OJ 2016 C 202, p. 389.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6636/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—