This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0324
Case C-324/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
Case C-324/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
Case C-324/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
OJ C 256, 7.8.2017, p. 16–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.8.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 256/16 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov
(Case C-324/17)
(2017/C 256/14)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad
Party to the main proceedings
Ivan Gavanozov
Questions referred
1. |
Are national legislation and case-law consistent with Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU (1) regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, in so far as they preclude a challenge, either directly as an appeal against a court decision or indirectly by means of a separate claim for damages, to the substantive grounds of a court decision issuing a European investigation order for a search on residential and business premises and the seizure of specific items, and allowing examination of a witness? |
2. |
Does Article 14(2) of the directive grant, in an immediate and direct manner, to a concerned party the right to challenge a court decision issuing a European investigation order, even where such a procedural step is not provided for by national law? |
3. |
Is the person against whom a criminal charge was brought, in the light of Article 14(2) in connection with Article 6(1)(a) and Article 1(4) of the directive, a concerned party, within the meaning of Article 14(4), if the measures for collection of evidence are directed at third party? |
4. |
Is the person who occupies the property in which the search and seizure was carried out or the person who is to be examined as a witness a concerned party within the meaning of Article 14(4) in connection with Article 14(2) of the directive? |