# C_2020161EN.01000401.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku — Poland) — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A.

(Case C-183/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons - Incomplete transposition of a framework decision - Duty to interpret national law in accordance with EU law - Scope)

(2020/C 161/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB)

Defendant: Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. w Gdańsku

Intervener: Prokuratura Rejonowa Gdańsk-Śródmieście w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘legal person’ set out, inter alia, in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted in the light of the law of the issuing State of the decision imposing a financial penalty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘legal person’ set out, inter alia, in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted in the light of the law of the issuing State of the decision imposing a financial penalty.

| 2. | Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that that it does not require a national court not to apply a provision of national law that is incompatible with Article 9(3) of Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision, since that provision is devoid of direct effect. Nevertheless, the referring court is required to give, as far as is possible, an interpretation of national law in accordance with EU law in order to ensure a result that is compatible with the aim pursued by Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that that it does not require a national court not to apply a provision of national law that is incompatible with Article 9(3) of Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision, since that provision is devoid of direct effect. Nevertheless, the referring court is required to give, as far as is possible, an interpretation of national law in accordance with EU law in order to ensure a result that is compatible with the aim pursued by Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---