# C_2023173EN.01000401.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare — Romania) — Dual Prod SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca — Comisia regională pentru autorizarea operatorilor de produse supuse accizelor armonizate

(Case C-412/21, (1) Dual Prod)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 16(1) - Authorisation to operate as a tax warehouse for products subject to excise duty - Successive suspension measures - Whether criminal in nature - Articles 48 and 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Principle ne bis in idem - Proportionality)

(2023/C 173/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dual Prod SRL

Defendant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca — Comisia regională pentru autorizarea operatorilor de produse supuse accizelor armonizate

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding an authorisation to operate as a tax warehouse for products subject to excise duty from being suspended for administrative purposes, until the conclusion of criminal proceedings, on the sole ground that the holder of that authorisation has been formally charged in those criminal proceedings, if that suspension constitutes a criminal penalty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding an authorisation to operate as a tax warehouse for products subject to excise duty from being suspended for administrative purposes, until the conclusion of criminal proceedings, on the sole ground that the holder of that authorisation has been formally charged in those criminal proceedings, if that suspension constitutes a criminal penalty.

| 2. | Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as not precluding a criminal penalty, for infringement of the rules on products subject to excise duty, from being imposed on a legal person who has already been subject, in respect of the same facts, to a criminal penalty that has become final, provided:






  — | that the possibility of duplicating those two penalties is provided for by law; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as not precluding a criminal penalty, for infringement of the rules on products subject to excise duty, from being imposed on a legal person who has already been subject, in respect of the same facts, to a criminal penalty that has become final, provided:

—

that the possibility of duplicating those two penalties is provided for by law;

| — | that national legislation does not allow for proceedings and penalties in respect of the same facts on the basis of the same offence or in pursuit of the same objective, but provides for only the possibility of a duplication of proceedings and penalties under different legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

that national legislation does not allow for proceedings and penalties in respect of the same facts on the basis of the same offence or in pursuit of the same objective, but provides for only the possibility of a duplication of proceedings and penalties under different legislation;

| — | that those proceedings and penalties pursue complementary aims relating, as the case may be, to different aspects of the same unlawful conduct at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

that those proceedings and penalties pursue complementary aims relating, as the case may be, to different aspects of the same unlawful conduct at issue;

| — | that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the different authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a manner that is sufficiently coordinated and within a proximate time frame; and that any penalty that may have been imposed in the proceedings that were first in time was taken into account in the assessment of the second penalty, meaning that the resulting burden, for the persons concerned, of such duplication is limited to what is strictly necessary and the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed. |
| --- | --- |

—

that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the different authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a manner that is sufficiently coordinated and within a proximate time frame; and that any penalty that may have been imposed in the proceedings that were first in time was taken into account in the assessment of the second penalty, meaning that the resulting burden, for the persons concerned, of such duplication is limited to what is strictly necessary and the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.

---

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---