CJEU Case C-562/24 / Judgment

30.  By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 8(2)(d) of Framework Decision 2006/783, read in the light of Article 17(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent judicial authority of the executing Member State may refuse to recognise and execute a confiscation order issued in another Member State in respect of an immovable property which constitutes the ‘proceeds’ of a criminal offence, as defined in Article 2(e), of that framework decision, for the reason that the rights of a mortgage creditor make it impossible, on account of his or her status as a ‘bona fide third [party]’, within the meaning of Article 8(2)(d), to execute that order, where that creditor has registered a judgment mortgage against that immovable property in the executing Member State before the proceedings for recognition and execution of that order were brought in that Member State.

...

47. The principle of mutual recognition must be reconciled, as is apparent from Article 1(2) of that framework decision, with the observance of the fundamental rights, enshrined, in particular, by the Charter.

48. As is clear from the Court’s case-law, the confiscation of property substantially affects the rights of persons, in that it results in the definitive deprivation of the right of ownership in respect of that property, which is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter, paragraph 1 of which provides, inter alia, that everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 January 2021, Okrazhna prokuratura – Haskovo and Apelativna prokuratura – Plovdiv, C‑393/19, EU:C:2021:8, paragraphs 52 and 55).

...

55. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 8(2)(d) of Framework Decision 2006/783, read in the light of Article 17(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent judicial authority of the executing Member State may refuse to recognise or execute a confiscation order issued in another Member State in respect of immovable property which constitutes the ‘proceeds’ of a criminal offence, as defined in Article 2(e) of that framework decision, for the reason that the rights of a mortgage creditor make it impossible, on account of his or her status as a ‘bona fide third [party]’, within the meaning of Article 8(2)(d), to execute that order, where that creditor has registered a judgment mortgage against that immovable property in the executing Member State before the proceedings for recognition and execution of that order were brought in that Member State, it being understood that it is for the referring court to ascertain whether that creditor may be regarded as ‘bona fide’, within the meaning of that provision, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the issue, in the executing Member State, of the enforcement order that gives rise to the mortgage claim.