# C_2022095EN.01001902.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 December 2021 — ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas

(Case C-772/21)

(2022/C 95/24)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Lietuvos bankas

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the minimum standards referred to in that rule must be complied with by a cash handler who carries out automated fitness checking of euro banknotes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the minimum standards referred to in that rule must be complied with by a cash handler who carries out automated fitness checking of euro banknotes?

| 2. | If, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, the minimum standards referred to therein are applicable only to manufacturers of banknote handling machines (but not to cash handlers), should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, read in conjunction with Article 3(5) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law according to which the obligation to comply with those minimum standards does apply to a cash handler? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, the minimum standards referred to therein are applicable only to manufacturers of banknote handling machines (but not to cash handlers), should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, read in conjunction with Article 3(5) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law according to which the obligation to comply with those minimum standards does apply to a cash handler?

| 3. | Do the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes by banknote handling machines, regard being had to the fact that they are published on the ECB’s website, comply with the principle of legal certainty and with Article 297(2) TFEU, and are they binding on, and capable of being relied upon as regards, cash handlers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes by banknote handling machines, regard being had to the fact that they are published on the ECB’s website, comply with the principle of legal certainty and with Article 297(2) TFEU, and are they binding on, and capable of being relied upon as regards, cash handlers?

| 4. | Is Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, in so far as it provides that the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes are published on the ECB’s website and amended from time to time, contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to Article 297(2) TFEU, and therefore invalid? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, in so far as it provides that the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes are published on the ECB’s website and amended from time to time, contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to Article 297(2) TFEU, and therefore invalid?

---

(1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (ECB/2010/14) (2010/597/EU) (OJ 2010 L 267, p. 1).

---