# C_2017221EN.01000802.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 12 April 2017 — Lu Zheng v Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

(Case C-190/17)

(2017/C 221/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lu Zheng

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which in order to penalise failure to comply with the obligation to declare under Article 3 of that regulation permits a fine to be imposed of up to double the value of the means of payment used? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which in order to penalise failure to comply with the obligation to declare under Article 3 of that regulation permits a fine to be imposed of up to double the value of the means of payment used?

1

| 2. | Must Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down as aggravating circumstances in the case of failure to comply with the obligation to declare, lack of proof of the lawful origin of the means of payment and inconsistency between the activity carried on by the person concerned [and the amount of the movement]? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down as aggravating circumstances in the case of failure to comply with the obligation to declare, lack of proof of the lawful origin of the means of payment and inconsistency between the activity carried on by the person concerned [and the amount of the movement]?

| 3. | In the event that the two preceding questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of a financial penalty which, independently of the amount of the movement, can be up to 25 % of the undeclared cash satisfies the requirement of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the two preceding questions are answered in the affirmative, must Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of a financial penalty which, independently of the amount of the movement, can be up to 25 % of the undeclared cash satisfies the requirement of proportionality?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9.

1

---