Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v KP.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Writing for the Court: Lycourgos
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2025:595
• Docket Number: C-404/24
• Date: 01 August 2025
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

1 August 2025 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 6 – Burden of proof that the accused person is guilty – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal – Charge withdrawn in part by the public prosecutor’s office during the hearing – Obligation for the court to rule on the elements of the charge not maintained at the hearing )

In Case C‑404/24 [Dimnev], (i)

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 10 June 2024, received at the Court on 10 June 2024, in criminal proceedings against

KP,

other party:

Sofiyska gradska prokuratura,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra, O. Spineanu-Matei and N. Fenger, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– KP, by D.L. Kamenova, advokat,

– the Netherlands Government, by M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by M. Wasmeier and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1) and of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2 The request has been made in the context of criminal proceedings brought against KP for possession and distribution of narcotic substances.

Legal context

European Union law

3 Recitals 22 and 23 of Directive 2016/343 state:

‘(22) The burden of proof for establishing the guilt of suspects and accused persons is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the suspect or accused person. The presumption of innocence would be infringed if the burden of proof were shifted from the prosecution to the defence, without prejudice to any ex officio fact-finding powers of the court, to the independence of the judiciary when assessing the guilt of the suspect or accused person, and to the use of presumptions of fact or law concerning the criminal liability of a suspect or accused person. Such presumptions should be confined within reasonable limits, taking into account the importance of what is at stake and maintaining the rights of the defence, and the means employed should be reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Such presumptions should be rebuttable and in any event, should be used only where the rights of the defence are respected.

(23) In various Member States not only the prosecution, but also judges and competent courts are charged with seeking both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Member States which do not have an adversarial system should be able to maintain their current system provided that it complies with this Directive and with other relevant provisions of Union and international law.’

4 Article 3 of that directive, entitled ‘Presumption of innocence’, is worded as follows:

‘Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.’

5 Article 6 of that directive, entitled ‘Burden of proof’, provides:

‘1. Member States shall ensure that the burden of proof for establishing the guilt of suspects and accused persons is on the prosecution. This shall be without prejudice to any obligation on the judge or the competent court to seek both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, and to the right of the defence to submit evidence in accordance with the applicable national law.

2. Member States shall ensure that any doubt as to the question of guilt is to benefit the suspect or accused person, including where the court assesses whether the person concerned should be acquitted.’

Bulgarian law

6 Under Article 14(1) of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), in the version applicable to the main proceedings (‘the NPK’):

‘The court … shall decide on the basis of its own firm conviction …’

7 Article 27(1) of the NPK provides:

‘After the public prosecutor has lodged the indictment, … the court shall conduct the proceedings and decide on all questions relating to the case.’

8 Article 46 of the NPK provides:

‘(1) The public prosecutor shall bring and pursue prosecutions for criminal offences liable to public prosecution.

(2) In fulfilment of the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, the public prosecutor:

…

3. shall participate in court proceedings as the State prosecutor;

…’

9 Article 246 of the NPK states:

‘(1) The public prosecutor shall draw up an indictment if he or she is satisfied that the necessary evidence exists … to bring a prosecution before the court …

(2) The factual part of the indictment shall set out … the criminal offence which the accused person has committed …

(3) The final part of the indictment shall contain: … the legal classification of the act …

…’

10 Article 293 of the NPK is worded as follows:

‘The statement by the public prosecutor that the criminal proceedings are to be terminated or that a judgment of acquittal is to be given does not release the court from its obligation to decide on the basis of its own firm conviction.’

11 Under Article 301(1) of the NPK:

‘When giving judgment, the court shall examine and rule on the following questions:

1. whether an act has been committed, whether it was committed by the defendant, and whether it was committed culpably;

2. whether that act constitutes a criminal offence and how it is to be classified in law;

…’

The main proceedings and the question referred

12 The Sofiyska gradska prokuratura (Sofia City Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria) brought charges against KP for selling to a third person, on 21 May 2022, a sachet containing 0.67 g of marijuana, and for the possession, in two different places, for the purposes of distribution, of two other sachets containing 1.61 g and 0.5 g of marijuana.

13 In the indictment, those three acts were classified by that public prosecutor’s office, under Article 354a(1) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code), as distribution of a narcotic substance, in relation to the first act, and possession of a narcotic substance for the purposes of distribution, in relation to the two other acts. Those three offences were combined into one offence, classified as ‘repeated’, provided for in Article 26(1) of the Criminal Code, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of two to eight years and a fine of 5 000 to 20 000 leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 2 500 to 10 000).

14 The Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), before which the case was brought and which is the referring court, conducted a judicial investigation and heard the parties at the hearing in compliance with, according to that court, the adversarial principle and...