Court of Justice of the European Union · Judgment
C-342/25Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Fight against corruption involving officials of Member States of the European Union – Passive corruption – Exclusion of evidence obtained in a flawed manner – Exculpatory evidence – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – First and second paragraphs of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection – Right to an effective remedy – Directive 2012/13/EU – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Article 7(2) and (3) – Right of access to the materials of the case – Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – National legislation not implementing Union law – Lack of jurisdiction – Article 267 TFEU – Need for interpretation of EU law to enable the referring court to give judgment – None – Inadmissibility
- Decided
- 2026-06-11
- ECLI
- ECLI:EU:C:2026:469
- CELEX
- 62025CJ0342
- Finality
- Final, the decision cannot be appealed
Also searched as: Case C-342/25, C-342/25 2026, ECLI:EU:C:2026:469.
Interprets
Core objects in the machine route
Summary: Final, the decision cannot be appealed
This page shows the judgment and its core data. Risk assessment, relations, changes, agent answers with reasoning and provenance are open without a key in the machine route.
- Finality status
- Precedent and holding
- Relations between precedents
- Agent object, risk graph and relation graph
- Change graph
- Provenance and verified text
Source: NovaCopilot
Node map: relations between precedents
How the judgment has been affected over time, read from the judgments' own text. Every step has paragraph and hash in the machine route.
Reading relations …
Source: NovaCopilot
Retrieved directly from EUR-Lex when you click. No permanent storage on our side. How it works
Machine addresses
- id
- eu:c-342-25
Read from EU:s publikationsbyrå, Cellar (EUR-Lex och CURIA) on 2026-08-22.
The row repeats what the source states. It is not a summary, not a conclusion about any single case and not legal advice.
Verifiable trust signals
- Source-linked answers and explicit evidence gaps
- Obligations, controls, risks and consequences
- Stable objects and verifiable checksums
- Rule-based objects, optional source-linked reasoning
- Model card, source status and audit