This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0310
Case C-310/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences — Principle of effectiveness — Taking of evidence — Interception of telecommunications — Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction — Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence — Provisions of national law — Prohibition)
Case C-310/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences — Principle of effectiveness — Taking of evidence — Interception of telecommunications — Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction — Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence — Provisions of national law — Prohibition)
Case C-310/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 325(1) TFEU — Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences — Principle of effectiveness — Taking of evidence — Interception of telecommunications — Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction — Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence — Provisions of national law — Prohibition)
OJ C 93, 11.3.2019, p. 2–2
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.3.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 93/2 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others
(Case C-310/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests - Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences - Principle of effectiveness - Taking of evidence - Interception of telecommunications - Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction - Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence - Provisions of national law - Prohibition))
(2019/C 93/02)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad
Parties in the main proceedings
Petar Dzivev, Galina Angelova, Georgi Dimov, Milko Velkov
Operative part of the judgment
Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 1(1)(b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted to the effect that, in the light of the principle of effectiveness of the prosecution of value added tax (VAT) offences, they do not preclude a national court from applying a national provision excluding, from a prosecution, evidence such as the interception of telecommunications requiring prior judicial authorisation, where that authorisation was given by a court that lacked jurisdiction, in a situation in which that evidence alone is capable of proving that the offences in question were committed.