{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:96c5d4","proof":"sha256:a2fe4180268b42ce7f6c4d7ffad701445b56cade2649ef3e8ce07d85a95a8a82","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_22","para_23"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"Background to the dispute","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"The action before the General Court and the order under appeal","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"The appeal","paragraphs":["para_118","para_119"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"Admissibility","paragraphs":["para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_190","para_191","para_192"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203"],"kind":"costs"},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:","paragraphs":["para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209"],"kind":"operative"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"16 April 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Appeal – Institutional law – Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 – European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) – Article 42(1) – Procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties – Judicial review carried out by the national courts – Plea of illegality – Admissibility – Ex …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑328/24 P,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 30 April 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși, residing in Bucharest (Romania), represented by A. Şandru, avocat,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"the other parties to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"European Public Prosecutor’s Office, represented by L. De Matteis, E. Farhat and F.-R. Radu, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"defendant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"supported by:","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"European Parliament, represented by K. Cieslar and C. Ionescu Dima, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"intervener in the appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan, D. Gratsias (Rapporteur) and B. Smulders, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Advocate General: L. Medina,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"1         By his appeal, Mr Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși seeks to have set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 28 February 2024, Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși v EPPO (T‑385/23, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2024:143), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking …","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"2         Recitals 30, 31, 36, 83 and 85 to 89 of Regulation 2017/1939 state:","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"‘(30)      The investigations of the EPPO should as a rule be carried out by European Delegated Prosecutors in the Member States. They should do so in accordance with this Regulation and, as regards matters not covered by this Regulation, in accordance with national law. …","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"(31)      The functions of prosecutor in competent courts apply until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspect or accused person has committed the offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any legal action or remedies available until that decision has become definitive.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(36)      The Permanent Chambers should exercise their decision-making power at specific steps of the proceedings of the EPPO with a view to ensuring a common investigation and prosecution policy. They should adopt decisions on the basis of a draft decision proposed by the handling European Delegated Prosecutor. …","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"(83)      This Regulation requires the EPPO to respect, in particular, the right to a fair trial, the rights of the defence and the presumption of innocence, as enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”)]. …","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"(85)      The rights of defence provided for in the relevant Union law … should apply to the activities of the EPPO. Any suspect or accused person in respect of whom the EPPO initiates an investigation should benefit from those rights, as well as from the rights provided for in national law to request that experts are appointed or that witnesses are heard, or that evidence on behalf of the defence is otherwise produced by the EPPO.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"(86)      Article 86(3) TFEU allows the Union legislator to determine the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by the EPPO in the performance of its functions. That competence granted to the Union legislator reflects the specific nature of the tasks and structure of the EPPO, which is different from that of all other bodies and agencies of the Union and requires special rules regarding judicial review.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"(87)      According to Article 86(2) TFEU, the EPPO exercises its functions of prosecutor before the competent courts of the Member States. Acts undertaken by the EPPO in the course of its investigations are closely related to the prosecution which may result therefrom, and thus have effects in the …","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"It is therefore appropriate to consider that procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties should be subject to review by the competent national courts in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by national law. This should ensure th …","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"(88)      The legality of procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties should be subject to judicial review before national courts. In that regard, effective remedies should be ensured in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU. …","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"When national courts review the legality of such acts, they may do so on the basis of Union law, including this Regulation, and also on the basis of national law, which applies to the extent that a matter is not dealt with by this Regulation. …","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"(89)      The provision of this Regulation on judicial review does not alter the powers of the Court of Justice to review the EPPO administrative decisions, which are intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, namely decisions that are not taken in the performance of its functions of in …","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"3         Article 4 of that regulation, entitled ‘Tasks’, is worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"‘The EPPO shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union … In that respect the EPPO shall undertake investigations, and carry out acts of prosecution and exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States, until the case has been finally disposed of.’","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"4         Under Article 8 of that regulation, entitled ‘Structure of the EPPO’:","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"‘1.      The EPPO shall be an indivisible Union body operating as one single Office with a decentralised structure.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"2.      The EPPO shall be organised at a central level and at a decentralised level.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"3.      The central level shall consist of a Central Office at the seat of the EPPO. The Central Office shall consist of the College, the Permanent Chambers, the European Chief Prosecutor, the Deputy European Chief Prosecutors, the European Prosecutors and the Administrative Director.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"4.      The decentralised level shall consist of European Delegated Prosecutors who shall be located in the Member States.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"5         Article 10 of that regulation, entitled ‘The Permanent Chambers’, provides, in paragraphs (1) to (3):","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"‘1.      The Permanent Chambers shall be chaired by the European Chief Prosecutor or one of the Deputy European Chief Prosecutors, or a European Prosecutor appointed as Chair in accordance with the internal rules of procedure of the EPPO. In addition to the Chair, the Permanent Chambers shall have t …","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"2.      The Permanent Chambers shall monitor and direct the investigations and prosecutions conducted by the European Delegated Prosecutors in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this Article. …","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"3.      In accordance with the conditions and procedures set out by this Regulation, where applicable after reviewing a draft decision proposed by the handling European Delegated Prosecutor, the Permanent Chambers shall decide on the following issues:","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"(a)      to bring a case to judgment …;","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"(b)      to dismiss a case …;","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"6         Article 13 of Regulation 2017/1939, entitled ‘The European Delegated Prosecutors’, is worded as follows, in paragraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"‘The European Delegated Prosecutors shall act on behalf of the EPPO in their respective Member States and shall have the same powers as national prosecutors in respect of investigations, prosecutions and bringing cases to judgment, in addition and subject to the specific powers and status conferred on them, and under the conditions set out in this Regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"The European Delegated Prosecutors shall be responsible for those investigations and prosecutions that they have initiated, that have been allocated to them or that they have taken over using their right of evocation. The European Delegated Prosecutors shall follow the direction and instructions of the Permanent Chamber in charge of a case as well as the instructions from the supervising European Prosecutor.","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"The European Delegated Prosecutors shall also be responsible for bringing a case to judgment, in particular have the power to present trial pleas, participate in taking evidence and exercise the available remedies in accordance with national law.’","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"7         Article 28 of that regulation, entitled ‘Conducting the investigation’, provides in paragraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"‘The European Delegated Prosecutor handling a case may, in accordance with this Regulation and with national law, either undertake the investigation measures and other measures on his/her own or instruct the competent authorities in his/her Member State. Those authorities shall, in accordance with national law, ensure that all instructions are followed and undertake the measures assigned to them. …’","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"8         Article 30 of that regulation, entitled ‘Investigation measures and other measures’, states, in paragraph 5, that the procedures and modalities for taking the measures referred to in that article are to be governed by the applicable national law.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"9         Article 31 of that regulation, entitled ‘Cross-border investigations’, provides in paragraph 3:","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"‘If judicial authorisation for the measure is required under the law of the Member State of the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor, the assisting European Delegated Prosecutor shall obtain that authorisation in accordance with the law of that Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"10       Article 36 of Regulation 2017/1939, entitled ‘Prosecution before national courts’, sets out the arrangements under which the Permanent Chamber, on the basis of a draft decision submitted by the European Delegated Prosecutor, decides to bring a case to judgment. In accordance with paragraph …","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"11       Article 37 of that regulation, entitled ‘Evidence’, provides in paragraph 2:","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"‘The power of the trial court to freely assess the evidence presented by the defendant or the prosecutors of the EPPO shall not be affected by this Regulation.’","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"12       Article 41 of the regulation, entitled ‘Scope of the rights of the suspects and accused persons’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"‘1.      The activities of the EPPO shall be carried out in full compliance with the rights of suspects and accused persons enshrined in the Charter, including the right to a fair trial and the rights of defence.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"2.      Any suspected or accused person in the criminal proceedings of the EPPO shall, at a minimum, have the procedural rights provided for in Union law …","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"3.      Without prejudice to the rights provided in this Chapter, suspects and accused persons as well as other persons involved in the proceedings of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall have all the procedural rights available to them under the applicable national law …’","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"13       Article 42 of that regulation, entitled ‘Judicial review’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"‘1.      Procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties shall be subject to review by the competent national courts in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by national law. The same applies to failures of the EPPO to adopt procedural acts which are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties and which it was legally required to adopt under this Regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"2.      The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU, to give preliminary rulings concerning:","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"(a)      the validity of procedural acts of the EPPO, in so far as such a question of validity is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State directly on the basis of Union law;","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"(b)      the interpretation or the validity of provisions of Union law, including this Regulation;","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"(c)      the interpretation of Articles 22 and 25 of this Regulation in relation to any conflict of competence between the EPPO and the competent national authorities.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"3.      By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, the decisions of the EPPO to dismiss a case, in so far as they are contested directly on the basis of Union law, shall be subject to review before the Court of Justice in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"4.      The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 268 TFEU in any dispute relating to compensation for damage caused by the EPPO.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"5.      The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 272 TFEU in any dispute concerning arbitration clauses contained in contracts concluded by the EPPO.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"6.      The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 270 TFEU in any dispute concerning staff-related matters.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"7.      The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction on the dismissal of the European Chief Prosecutor or European Prosecutors, …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"8.      This Article is without prejudice to judicial review by the Court of Justice in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU of decisions of the EPPO that affect the data subjects’ rights under Chapter VIII and of decisions of the EPPO which are not procedural acts, such as decis …","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Background to the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"14       The background to the dispute, which is set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the order under appeal, may be summarised as follows.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"15       By a decision of 6 July 2021, the EPPO ordered the initiation of an investigation, in the context of which the appellant, Mr Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși, acquired the status of defendant on 25 May 2022.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"16       By the decision at issue, Permanent Chamber 10 of the EPPO ordered, first, that the appellant and other defendants be brought before the Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania) and, secondly, that the case be dismissed as regards certain suspects, in the absence of relevant evidence.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"17       By indictment of 19 December 2022, the appellant was brought before a trial court for the offence of establishing a criminal organised group, provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 367 of the Romanian Criminal Code, and for complicity in the offence of using or presenting false, inco …","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"The action before the General Court and the order under appeal","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"18       By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 July 2023, the appellant brought, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, an action by which he requested the General Court, first, to annul the decision at issue and the subsequent acts and, secondly, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, to declare inapplicable the provisions of the internal rules of procedure of the EPPO which are contrary to Regulation 2017/1939.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"19       By a separate document lodged at the General Court Registry on 28 September 2023, the EPPO raised, pursuant to Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an objection of inadmissibility by which it asked the General Court to dismiss the action as inadmissible and order the appellant to pay the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"20       As is apparent from paragraph 8 of the order under appeal, the General Court, pursuant to Article 130(1) and (7) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to rule on that objection of inadmissibility without taking further steps in the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"21       In paragraph 9 of that order, the General Court stated that the EPPO had raised, in the context of that objection of inadmissibility, three pleas of inadmissibility. First, it had argued that the General Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the claims for annulment directed against th …","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"22       In paragraphs 10 to 15 of that order, the General Court set out the arguments relied on by the EPPO in support of its first plea of inadmissibility. In essence, by those arguments, the EPPO maintained that the decision at issue was a procedural act, within the meaning of Article 42(1) of Re …","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"23       In paragraphs 16 to 20 of the same order, the General Court summarised the arguments put forward by the appellant in the context of his observations on the EPPO’s objection of inadmissibility. According to the appellant, inasmuch as it derogates from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court …","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"24       As set out in paragraph 21 of the order under appeal, the General Court considered that the mechanism provided for by the EU legislature to ensure the review of procedural acts of the EPPO was a sui generis mechanism.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"25       In that regard, it observed, in paragraph 22 of that order, that Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 provided, inter alia, that procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties were subject to review by the competent national courts in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by national law.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"26       In addition, in paragraph 23 of that order, it noted that that article expressly provided, in paragraphs 3 and 8 thereof, for the jurisdiction of the EU Courts, under Article 263 TFEU, only for (i) decisions of the EPPO to dismiss a case, in so far as they are contested directly on the basi …","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"27       In paragraph 24 of that order, the General Court found that the decision at issue, in so far as it concerned the appellant, constituted a procedural act of the EPPO which did not fall within the scope of the decisions referred to in Article 42(3) and (8) of that regulation, given that, by that decision, the EPPO had brought the case to judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"28       As regards the appellant’s argument that the General Court should declare that it had jurisdiction on the basis of an interpretation of that article in order to comply with the requirements, in particular, of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and not to undermine the jur …","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"29       In the present case, in paragraph 27 of that order, the General Court held that it was absolutely clear from the wording of Article 42(1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1939 that that provision confers on national courts exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine procedural acts of the EPPO w …","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"30       In addition, in paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, the General Court noted that, even if the appellant had also intended to challenge the decision at issue by contesting, by way of the plea of illegality, the validity of Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939, in the light of Article 19 TEU, such a challenge could not be accepted, on account of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the main action.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"31       Lastly, in paragraphs 30 and 31 of that order, as regards the requirements relating to effective judicial protection, the General Court observed that, as is apparent from Article 42(2) of Regulation 2017/1939, the Court of Justice had jurisdiction, inter alia, under Article 267 TFEU, to hea …","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"32       In the light of all those findings, the General Court, in paragraph 32 of the order under appeal, upheld the EPPO’s first plea of inadmissibility and, consequently, dismissed the action on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine it, taking the view that there was no need to rule, furthermore, on the claims relating to the provisions of the internal rules of procedure of the EPPO, which concerned the substance of the dispute.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"The procedure before the Court of Justice and the forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"33       By decision of the President of the Court of 11 November 2024, the European Parliament was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the EPPO.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"34       The appellant claims that the Court should:","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"–        declare his appeal admissible;","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"–        set aside the order under appeal; and","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"–        annul the decision at issue.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"35       The EPPO, supported by the Parliament, contends that the Court should:","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"–        dismiss the appeal in its entirety; and","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"–        order the appellant to pay the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"The appeal","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"36       In support of his appeal, the appellant raises a ground of appeal alleging an error of law on the part of the General Court, in that the General Court dismissed his action without examining his line of argument by which he claimed that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 did not satisfy the …","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Admissibility","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"37       The EPPO, supported by the Parliament, claims that the appeal should be dismissed as inadmissible. It submits that the appellant does not put forward any specific arguments seeking to identify the error of law allegedly vitiating the order under appeal and that, without identifying the prov …","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"38       In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of th …","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"39       An appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the General Court, including those based on facts express …","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"40       However, provided that an appellant challenges the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant could not thus base his or her appeal on pleas in law and …","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"41       In the present case, first, it should be noted that, contrary to the EPPO’s assertion, the appellant, in his appeal, identified, clearly and specifically, the alleged error of law vitiating the order under appeal in claiming that the General Court had failed to examine his arguments demonstrating, from his point of view, that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 was contrary to primary EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"42       Secondly, since the General Court dismissed the action on the ground that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 constituted an obstacle to the bringing of an action for annulment before it against a procedural act of the EPPO, the appellant may rely on the arguments which he put forward at first instance, referred to in paragraph 41 of the present judgment, in order to demonstrate that that finding is vitiated by an error of law.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"43       The appeal is therefore admissible.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"The first ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"44       First of all, the appellant submits that, before the General Court, he argued that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 did not satisfy the requirements of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial laid down in Article 47 of the Charter and that it undermined the jurisdiction of th …","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"45       First, he submits, in that regard, that the wording of Article 86(3) TFEU provides for the possibility, for Regulation 2017/1939, of laying down the ‘rules applicable to the judicial review’ of procedural measures taken by the EPPO, without expressly referring to the possibility of derogati …","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"46       Secondly, as regards the alleged infringement of Article 47 of the Charter, he submits that national courts do not have the expertise and jurisdiction to declare invalid EU acts, such as Regulation 2017/1939 or the internal rules of procedure of the EPPO, with the result that, where the pro …","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"47       In the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment on the basis that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 was compatible with primary EU law without expressly stating reasons for that premiss and, in particular, without examining the arguments set out in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the present judgment, which call that premiss into question. It was therefore wrong to declare that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"48       The EPPO, supported by the Parliament, submits, first, on the basis of paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, that, in view of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, the plea of illegality concerning Article 42 of that regulation could not be discussed. …","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"49       Secondly, it submits that the interpretation of Article 42 of that regulation proposed by the appellant would lead to a blatant infringement of Article 86(2) and (3) TFEU, by creating a remedy before the EU Courts not provided for by the FEU Treaty and by transforming those courts into a court of ordinary judicial review in cases involving the EPPO, to the detriment of the jurisdiction of national courts.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"50       Thirdly, it submits that Article 42 does not infringe any of the provisions of primary EU law relied on by the appellant and that, in accordance with Article 86(3) TFEU and as is apparent from recital 86 of Regulation 2017/1939, Article 42 constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Article 263 TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"51       Fourthly, the EPPO claims that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 is based on several legal pillars guaranteeing access to justice and the rights of the defence, and seeks to ensure that all aspects of the legality of the EPPO’s procedural acts are verified and offer an effective remedy in …","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"52       Fifthly, the fact that the procedural acts of the EPPO are subject to judicial review by the national courts is a direct consequence of the fact that, in accordance with Article 86 TFEU and Article 36 of Regulation 2017/1939, cases which are the subject of an investigation by the EPPO give …","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"53       It is settled case-law that it is for the EU Courts to determine, including of their own motion, whether they have jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute, since such a question is a matter of public policy (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 April 1986, Les Verts v Parliament , 294/83, EU:C:1986:166, paragraph 19, and of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council , C‑134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"54       In the present case, as is apparent from paragraphs 25 to 32 of the order under appeal, the General Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, brought against a procedural act of the EPPO, within the meaning of Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939, withou …","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"55       First, in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the order under appeal, the General Court took the view that the interpretation of Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 put forward by the appellant in his action, according to which the General Court should declare that it has jurisdiction, inter alia, in ord …","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"56       Secondly, in paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, the General Court held that, even if the appellant intended to call into question, by means of the plea of illegality, the validity of Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 in the light of Article 19 TEU, such a challenge could not be accepted on account of its lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the action in the main proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"57       In addition, although, in paragraphs 30 and 31 of that order, the General Court, for the sake of completeness, suggested, in essence, that the requirements relating to effective judicial protection would be satisfied by the possibility, for the appellant, of raising a plea of illegality of …","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"58       In that regard, it must be held that the General Court cannot declare that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action without first examining the merits of all the arguments relied on before it, which seek specifically to establish its jurisdiction in that regard.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"59       More specifically, as regards paragraph 29 of the order under appeal, it should be noted that the settled case-law according to which the inadmissibility of the main action leads to the inadmissibility of the plea of illegality raised in support of that action (see, to that effect, judgment …","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"60       Thus, it follows from the case-law that, where a plea of illegality is raised before the General Court in respect of a provision of secondary law which removes from all judicial review the decision of an EU body challenged before it, on the ground that that provision is incompatible with Ar …","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"61       It follows from the considerations referred to in paragraphs 55 to 60 above that the General Court erred in law in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, brought against a procedural act of the EPPO, within the meaning of Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939, without examining whether primary EU law precluded such a finding.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"62       However, according to settled case-law, if the grounds of a judgment or order of the General Court disclose an infringement of EU law but the operative part of that judgment is shown to be well founded for other legal reasons, the appeal must be dismissed (judgment of 28 October 2020, Associazione GranoSalus v Commission , C‑313/19 P, EU:C:2020:869, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"63       That is the case in this instance.","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"64       Further, as regards, in the first place, the appellant’s argument that Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 adversely affects the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union, provided for in Article 19 TEU and Article 263 TFEU, it must be borne in mind that, as is apparent from Artic …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"65       In that context, it is for the national courts and tribunals and for the Court of Justice to ensure the full application of EU law in all Member States and to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under that law. The national courts and tribunals, in collaboration with the Co …","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"66       Furthermore, in accordance with Article 19(3) TEU, the FEU Treaty has established, by Articles 263 and 277, on the one hand, and Article 267, on the other, a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure judicial review of the legality of EU acts, and has entrusted suc …","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"67       Accordingly, natural or legal persons who cannot, by reason of the conditions of admissibility stated in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, challenge directly EU acts of general application do have protection against the application to them of those acts. Where responsibility for the …","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"68       However, it must be borne in mind that, in order to take account of the particular nature of the tasks and structure of the EPPO, which, as stated in recital 86 of Regulation 2017/1939, differs from that of all other bodies and agencies of the European Union, Article 86(3) TFEU permits the …","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"69       As the Court has already held, the EU legislature exercised that competence in adopting Article 42 of that regulation, paragraph 1 of which provides that procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties are to be subject to review by the compete …","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"70       The substantial level of integration of that EU body within the Member States’ systems of criminal procedure in the context within which they exercise their competences, as is clear from the first paragraph of recital 87 of the regulation, is the reason for the national courts having jurisd …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"71       By contrast, paragraphs 2 to 8 of Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 list the cases in which judicial review of the activity of the EPPO falls within the jurisdiction of the EU Courts. In particular, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) and (b) of that article, it is for the Court to give a pr …","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"72       It should be noted that, contrary to what the appellant claims, the division of jurisdiction between the national courts and the EU Courts in Article 42 of Regulation 2017/1939 in no way constitutes an unauthorised derogation from the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU Courts to review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"73       In that regard, it should be noted that, by subjecting to judicial review by national courts only procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, with the exception of decisions of the EPPO to dismiss a case, and by providing for the jurisdiction of th …","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"74       More specifically, the absence of an express reference, in the wording of Article 86(3) TFEU, to a derogation from the rules on the jurisdiction of the EU Courts laid down in Article 263 TFEU, relied on by the appellant, does not mean that, as the appellant maintains, that wording merely em …","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"75       Thus, first, it is apparent from Article 86(2) TFEU that the EPPO is to be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment in the competent courts of the Member States the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the financial interests of the European Union …","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"76       Consequently, having regard to the particular nature of the tasks conferred by the FEU Treaty on the EPPO, which relate to the conviction, by the competent national courts, of the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, the offences in respect of which it exercises the functions of prosecutor, …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"77       The question whether judicial review of procedural acts must fall within the jurisdiction of the EU Courts or that of the national courts is closely linked to the division of powers in the field in question between the EU authorities and the national authorities laid down by the secondary l …","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"78       Within the institutional and procedural framework established by Regulation 2017/1939, as is, in essence, emphasised by the first paragraph of recital 87 thereof, the legal effects that procedural acts of the EPPO produce vis-à-vis third parties are, to a large extent, determined by the nat …","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"79       First, under Article 10(2) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 13(1), the European Delegated Prosecutors, under the supervision and direction of the Permanent Chambers, are to act on behalf of the EPPO in their respective Member States and are to have the same powers as national prosecutors in respect of investigations, prosecutions and bringing cases to judgment, subject to the specific powers and status conferred on them by that regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"80       Secondly, under Article 28(1) of Regulation 2017/1939, the European Delegated Prosecutor handling a case may, in accordance with that regulation and national law, either undertake the investigation measures and other measures on his or her own or instruct the competent authorities in his or …","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"81       Thirdly, in accordance with Article 86(2) TFEU and under the conditions laid down in Article 36 of Regulation 2017/1939, the Permanent Chamber is to conduct, if necessary, a prosecution before the national courts by adopting a decision to bring the case to judgment, such as the decision at issue, where appropriate, after having determined the competent national court in the Member State concerned on the basis of national law.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"82       Fourthly, the Court has held that the assessment of the effects of a decision to summon a witness to appear on the rights of persons who are the subject of an investigation depends, to a certain extent, on national procedural rules and the specific context of the criminal investigation in t …","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"83       In addition, it should be pointed out that the procedural acts of the EPPO constitute a stage of criminal proceedings at the end of which the final decision-making power lies exclusively with the competent national court, which, in accordance with Article 37(2) of Regulation 2017/1939, has discretion to assess the evidence submitted, inter alia, by the EPPO on the basis of such acts.","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"84       It follows from all of the foregoing that the jurisdiction of national courts to carry out such a judicial review does not constitute an unauthorised derogation from Article 263 TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"85       As argued, in essence, by the EPPO and the Parliament, those findings are corroborated by Article 42(2) to (8) of Regulation 2017/1939, under which judicial review of the activity of the EPPO, except in the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of that article, falls within the jurisdiction of the EU Courts.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"86       In particular, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU and as provided for in Article 42(2) of Regulation 2017/1939, the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings, inter alia, on the validity of procedural acts of the EPPO, provided that such a question of validity is raised directly on the basis of EU law and concerning the interpretation or validity of provisions of EU law, including that regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"87       Similarly, pursuant to Article 42(8) TFEU and in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the General Court is to exercise judicial review in respect of decisions of the EPPO which affect the rights of data subjects in relation to the protection of personal data, decisions which are not procedural acts or any other administrative decision.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"88       Lastly, pursuant to Article 42(3) and by way of derogation from paragraph 1 thereof, the review of decisions of the EPPO to dismiss a case falls within the jurisdiction of the EU Courts, in so far as they are challenged directly on the basis of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"89       As regards, in particular, Article 42(3) of Regulation 2017/1939, the exception to the jurisdiction of the national courts to review the procedural acts of the EPPO which it establishes confirms the fact that that article reflects the division of jurisdiction in the field in question between the national courts and the EU Courts.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"90       In the event of a decision of the EPPO to dismiss the case, the national court having jurisdiction as to the substance will not rule, by definition, in the light of prosecution brought by the EPPO, which the latter has waived. Thus, in that situation, the final decision-making power lies no …","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"91       It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that, by conferring on national courts the power to carry out judicial review of procedural acts of the EPPO intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, the EU legislature did not undermine the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union, provided for in Article 19 TEU and Article 263 TFEU.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"92       That finding is not called into question by the judgments of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), and of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest (C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023, paragraphs 48, 57 and 60), and Opinion 1/20 ( Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU (Modernised Energy Charter Treaty) ) of 16 June 2022 (EU:C:2022:485), cited by the appellant in support of his arguments.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"93       The situation referred to in paragraphs 48 and 57 of the judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest (C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023), relates to the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU Courts to assess, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU and incidentally, whether the legality of a decis …","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"94       Moreover, the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), and Opinion 1/20 (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU (Modernised Energy Charter Treaty) ) of 16 June 2022 (EU:C:2022:485) are, in the present case, manifestly irrelevant, since they relate to the submission of d …","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"95       In the second place, as regards the appellant’s argument alleging breach of the right to effective judicial protection, that argument must be rejected, since, as stated in paragraph 91 of the present judgment, by attributing to the national courts jurisdiction to carry out judicial review o …","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"96       According to the Court’s case-law, Article 47 of the Charter cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court, where the Treaties exclude it. Nor is that article intended to change the system of judicial review laid down by those provisions, and in particular the rules relating to the admissibility …","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"97       In any event, it must be held that Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 respects the right to effective judicial protection, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"98       First, as the Court has held, that provision, read in conjunction with Article 41 of that regulation and in the light of recitals 83 and 85 to 87, must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial review of procedural acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties makes it po …","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"99       Secondly, as the EPPO and the Parliament submit, in essence, and as has been set out in paragraphs 85 to 90 of the present judgment, Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 must be read in the light of the context of Article 42 as a whole, of which it forms part, and of the scheme of that article.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"100     In that regard, it should be noted that Article 42(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 is fully consistent with the complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure judicial review of the legality of EU acts, established by the FEU Treaty, given, inter alia, that it is linked to pa …","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"101     It follows from all of the foregoing that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action against the decision at issue. It follows that the error of law found in paragraphs 58 and 61 of the present judgment has no bearing on the operative part of the order under appeal. Consequently, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as ineffective.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"102     In the alternative, the appellant submits, in essence, that the General Court’s refusal to reserve its decision on the admissibility of the action until it rules on the substance of the case is vitiated by an error of law. In his view, first, the objection of inadmissibility is closely linke …","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"103     The EPPO, supported by the Parliament, disputes that line of argument.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"104     First, it should be noted that, as is apparent from paragraphs 22 to 32 of the present judgment, the General Court dismissed the action while examining only the first plea of inadmissibility raised by the EPPO, alleging that the General Court lacked jurisdiction to review the legality of the decision at issue.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"105     In the light of the examination of the first ground of appeal carried out in paragraphs 53 to 101 of the present judgment, it must be held that the question of the jurisdiction of the General Court is not linked to the resolution of the substance of the action, since the only question which …","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"106     Secondly, the General Court cannot be required, under Article 130(7) of its Rules of Procedure, to reserve its decision on a plea of lack of jurisdiction or inadmissibility, submitted on the basis of Article 130(1) of those rules, for the final judgment on the ground that that plea raises a new and fundamental question concerning the EU legal order.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"107     Accordingly, the second ground of appeal must be rejected and the appeal dismissed in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"108     In accordance with Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where an appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"109     Article 138(1) of those rules, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of that regulation, provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"110     Since the EPPO has applied for Mr Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși to be ordered to pay the costs and he has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the EPPO.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"111     Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1), provides that the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"112     In the present case, the Parliament must be ordered to bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"1.       Dismisses the appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"2.       Orders Mr Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"3.       Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: Romanian.","paragraph_id":"para_209"}],"operative_part":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:\n\n1.       Dismisses the appeal;\n\n2.       Orders Mr Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;\n\n3.       Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.\n\n*       Language of the case: Romanian.","word_count":11513,"cites":["C-328/24","T-385/23","C-535/22","C-402/05","C-415/05","C-219/17","C-284/16","C-134/19","C-69/19","C-14/19","C-313/19","C-583/11","C-292/23","C-281/22","C-50/00","C-29/22","C-44/22"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"bbaf2262d174b49bd65698f9b9251b43295eca407aee5bf24b53b4d8e1d1cf22","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0328","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T09:31:52.247+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"present","cites_count":17,"word_count":11513,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:a2fe4180268b42ce7f6c4d7ffad701445b56cade2649ef3e8ce07d85a95a8a82","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54","content_hash":"sha256:a2fe4180268b42ce7f6c4d7ffad701445b56cade2649ef3e8ce07d85a95a8a82","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T09:59:00.752Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-328-24-p-62024cj0328"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-328-24-p-62024cj0328","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-08ca7a76977ad6826544ea939b8d81a0","response_hash":"sha256:a2fe4180268b42ce7f6c4d7ffad701445b56cade2649ef3e8ce07d85a95a8a82"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T08:59:01.147Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-328-24-p-62024cj0328&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":17865}}