SkyECC before the CJEU (C-625/25 Prudniez): Member States Split on an Effective Remedy Against European Investigation Order Evidence, Advocate General's Opinion on 19 November 2026
In Case C-625/25 (Prudniez), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) must decide whether a person prosecuted in another Member State on the basis of SkyECC data transmitted by France under a European Investigation Order can challenge the lawfulness of that evidence-gathering in France. The Advocate General will deliver the Opinion on 19 November 2026.
The written observations show a clear split. Sweden, the Czech Republic and France oppose any such remedy. Estonia and the European Commission argue that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires one.
Can a Person Prosecuted Abroad Challenge SkyECC Evidence Gathered in France?
On 16 September 2025, the French Cour de cassation (criminal chamber, No. 24-84.262) referred this question to the CJEU. The reference was lodged on 23 September 2025 and is registered as Case C-625/25, NV v Ministère public (Prudniez). The appeal had been brought by Christian Lödden (Germany), Justus Reisinger (the Netherlands) and Guillaume Martine (France), founding members of the Joint Defense Team (JDT), on behalf of a person prosecuted in Germany on the basis of SkyECC data that France had transmitted via a European Investigation Order.
The Cour de cassation itself stressed the significance of the referral. According to the Cour de cassation, the interpretation sought is likely to have significant consequences for other pending appeals in France and for the numerous proceedings in several Member States in which individuals are prosecuted, and in some cases detained, on the basis of SkyECC evidence transmitted via a European Investigation Order.
The question concerns every person prosecuted in Germany, Belgium, Spain or elsewhere on the basis of evidence collected in France without ever having been a party to the French proceedings. If such a person cannot challenge the lawfulness of the evidence-gathering, they fall into a judicial blind spot: they have no standing in the French proceedings, and the foreign trial court has no jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of investigative measures carried out on French territory.
The Joint Defense Team has criticised this gap in SkyECC cases for years (see our overview of EncroChat and SkyECC legal developments in 2025). Courts across Europe decline to rule on the lawfulness of the French operations, while French law offers the person concerned no procedural entry point. Christian Lödden, Justus Reisinger and Guillaume Martine brought the appeal before the Cour de cassation to close this gap and are now intervening before the CJEU in the preliminary ruling proceedings. They seek a ruling that establishes an effective remedy for every person affected, wherever in Europe they are prosecuted.
What the CJEU Is Asked to Decide under Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU
The Cour de cassation asks whether Article 14(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, precludes legislation of an executing Member State that gives the person against whom the evidence is used in the issuing State no remedy in the executing State to challenge the lawfulness and necessity of that evidence.
In the SkyECC cases, France is the executing State: French authorities transmit data already in their possession to prosecuting authorities in other Member States. The case also turns on the principle of equivalence, that is, whether a cross-border situation must be treated in the same way as a comparable purely domestic one.
Which Member States Oppose an Effective Remedy?
The written observations submitted by the Member States and the European Commission in Case C-625/25 reveal a clear fault line. Three governments argue for closing off any avenue of redress.
Sweden: review by the prosecuting State's court is sufficient
The Swedish government defends a restrictive reading of Article 14(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU. Where French law provides no equivalent remedy in a comparable purely domestic situation, France would be under no obligation. In the Swedish government's view, the rights of the person prosecuted are fully protected by the review carried out by the German trial court. This reliance on mutual recognition leaves out that the German court has no jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of evidence-gathering carried out in France.
Czech Republic: strict division between issuing and executing State
The Czech government follows similar reasoning and insists on a strict division of competences between the issuing State and the executing State. The lawfulness of the collection would then fall under the original French proceedings, to which the person prosecuted abroad was never a party and to which that person has no access.
France: no remedy for the transfer of evidence already held
The French government goes furthest. It argues that no remedy is required where a European Investigation Order merely transmits evidence already held by the French authorities, without any new investigative measure on French territory.
This position contradicts the one France took before the European Court of Human Rights in A.L. and E.J. v. France (EncroChat; 44715/20 and 47930/21). There, in order to obtain a finding of inadmissibility for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the French government stated that a remedy under Article 694-41 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure (Code de procédure pénale) was available. Before the CJEU, the French government now argues that the same provision does not apply.
The French government also argues that an effective remedy would undermine the efficiency of European judicial cooperation. This argument ranks the efficiency of law enforcement above the effectiveness of the rights of the defence.
Estonia and the European Commission: Article 47 of the Charter Requires a Remedy
Estonia
The Estonian government is the only Member State to take a position squarely in favour of the person prosecuted. Relying on Article 47 of the Charter, it considers that such a person must be able to challenge, in the executing State, the execution of the European Investigation Order, including the lawfulness of the evidence-gathering itself, irrespective of whether purely domestic law provides an equivalent remedy.
The European Commission
The European Commission, in a detailed submission, takes a nuanced position that largely aligns with Estonia on the decisive point. First, the Commission states that Article 47 of the Charter requires an effective remedy in France against the transfer of pre-existing evidence as such. In the Commission's view, the Cour de cassation has interpreted Article 694-41 of the Code de procédure pénale too restrictively.
Second, the Commission addresses equivalence. If French law allows a challenge to the lawfulness of the original collection in a comparable purely domestic situation, namely the transfer of material from one set of proceedings to another, an equivalent remedy must be available for a European Investigation Order. The Commission cites extensively the settled case law of the Cour de cassation, which grants this right to any person placed under formal investigation (mis en examen) in France with respect to material originating from other domestic proceedings.
The remaining issue is standing. The Commission concedes that the Cour de cassation makes this remedy conditional on a grievance that can be assessed within French proceedings, which is difficult where the trial takes place abroad. The Commission does not regard this as an insurmountable obstacle. According to the Commission, French law must adapt its procedural conditions so that the remedy is genuinely accessible in a cross-border context; otherwise Article 14 of Directive 2014/41/EU would be deprived of practical effect.
What the Advocate General's Opinion of 19 November 2026 Means for SkyECC Defendants
The Registry of the Court of Justice has informed the Joint Defense Team that the Advocate General will deliver the Opinion in Case C-625/25 at a public sitting on 19 November 2026.
The Opinion of the Advocate General does not bind the CJEU, but it often shapes the outcome of a case. Three Member States defend a minimal reading of Directive 2014/41/EU, among them France, which takes different positions depending on the court before which it appears. Estonia and the European Commission offer a framework that places the right to an effective remedy at the centre of the European Investigation Order system.
For individuals prosecuted across Europe on the basis of SkyECC data transmitted by France, the Opinion is the next step before the CJEU delivers its judgment. Christian Lödden, Justus Reisinger and Guillaume Martine, who brought the case from Regional Court in Gießen, Germany, over the Cour de cassation in France to the CJEU in Luxembourg, and the Joint Defense Team will continue to follow the proceedings and report on further developments.
FAQ on Case C-625/25 (Prudniez)
What is Case C-625/25 (Prudniez)?
Case C-625/25 is a reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de cassation to the CJEU on legal remedies against SkyECC evidence that France transmitted under a European Investigation Order.
Which Member States oppose an effective remedy in Case C-625/25?
Sweden, the Czech Republic and France argue that France need not provide a remedy to persons prosecuted in other Member States.
Who supports an effective remedy in Case C-625/25?
Estonia and the European Commission argue that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires such a remedy.
When will the Advocate General deliver the Opinion in Case C-625/25?
The Advocate General will deliver the Opinion on 19 November 2026.
