# C_2019065EN.01002201.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmnie (Poland) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v ZP

(Case C-671/18)

(2019/C 65/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmnie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (Central Fine Collection Agency, Ministry of Justice and Security) (CJIB)

Defendant: ZP

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 7(2)(i)(iii) and Article 20(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (2) (‘the Framework Decision’), be interpreted as authorising a court to refuse to enforce a decision of an authority of an issuing State other than a court if it finds that the service of that decision was effected in such a way as to infringe a party’s right to an effective defence before a court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 7(2)(i)(iii) and Article 20(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (2) (‘the Framework Decision’), be interpreted as authorising a court to refuse to enforce a decision of an authority of an issuing State other than a court if it finds that the service of that decision was effected in such a way as to infringe a party’s right to an effective defence before a court?

| 2. | In particular, can a finding that, despite the service procedures in force in the issuing State and the time limits laid down for appealing a decision as referred to in Article 1(a)(ii) and (iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA having been observed, the party residing in the State enforcing the decision did not have a real and effective opportunity to protect his rights at the pre-litigation stage of the proceedings due to not having been given sufficient time to respond to the notification of the imposition of the penalty in a proper manner constitute grounds for refusal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, can a finding that, despite the service procedures in force in the issuing State and the time limits laid down for appealing a decision as referred to in Article 1(a)(ii) and (iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA having been observed, the party residing in the State enforcing the decision did not have a real and effective opportunity to protect his rights at the pre-litigation stage of the proceedings due to not having been given sufficient time to respond to the notification of the imposition of the penalty in a proper manner constitute grounds for refusal?

| 3. | Under Article 3 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, can the scope of legal protection afforded to persons against whom a financial penalty is to be recognised depend on whether the procedure for imposing the penalty was an administrative procedure, a procedure concerning a petty offence or a criminal procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under Article 3 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, can the scope of legal protection afforded to persons against whom a financial penalty is to be recognised depend on whether the procedure for imposing the penalty was an administrative procedure, a procedure concerning a petty offence or a criminal procedure?

| 4. | In the light of the objectives and principles set out in Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, including Article 3 thereof, are the decisions of non-judicial authorities which are issued pursuant to the laws of the State issuing the decision concerned, under which the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is held liable for road traffic offences (that is to say, decisions issued solely on the basis of information obtained within the framework of the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data and without any investigation being carried out in that case, including determining the actual offender), enforceable? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the light of the objectives and principles set out in Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, including Article 3 thereof, are the decisions of non-judicial authorities which are issued pursuant to the laws of the State issuing the decision concerned, under which the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is held liable for road traffic offences (that is to say, decisions issued solely on the basis of information obtained within the framework of the cross-border exchange of vehicle registration data and without any investigation being carried out in that case, including determining the actual offender), enforceable?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16.

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).

---