1.

When interpreting Article 325 TFEU and Articles 1(1) and 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 (‘the PIF Convention’), (2) can a conspiracy involving several persons for the purpose of committing VAT fraud be regarded as fraud or other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union, regardless of whether the fraud constituting the purpose of the conspiracy is actually committed?

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, should the provisions of Articles 2 and 4(2) and (3) TEU, Articles 2(2) and 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PIF Convention, as interpreted by the judgment of the Court [of 24 July 2023, Lin, C-107/23 PPU, EU:C:2023:606; ‘the Lin judgment’], [and] Articles 20, 49(1), 52(3) and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [‘the Charter’] be interpreted as meaning that, in criminal proceedings concerning offences relating to VAT and related offences, the national court must disapply the national standard of protection relating to the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law (lex mitior), as this emerges from the binding case-law of the highest court of that Member State, according to which standard procedural acts taking place before the national legislative provision governing the causes of interruption of the limitation periods for criminal liability was invalidated do not have the effect of interrupting a limitation period, where: