Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2022:228
Date: 2022-03-23
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-454/20 – 1 
Case C-454/20 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
23 September 2020 
Referring court:  
Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
23 September 2020 
Prosecuting authority:  
Rayonna prokuratura Lukovit 
Accused person:  
AZ 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Criminal proceedings brought by the Rayonna prokuratura Lukovit (District 
Public Prosecutor’s Office, Lukovit, Bulgaria), asking that the accused, AZ, be 
found guilty of a criminal offence under Article 345(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks 
(Criminal Code, ‘NK’), for driving a motor vehicle which was not duly registered, 
thus infringing Article 140(1) and (2) of the Zakon za dvizhenieto po patishtata 
(Law on road traffic, ‘ZDvP’) and Naredba No I-45 ot 24.03.2000 za registrirane, 
otchet, spirane ot dvizhenie i puskane v dvizhenie, vremenno otnemane, 
prekratyavane i vazstanovyavane na registratsiyata na motornite prevozni sredstva 
i remarketa, tegleni ot tyah, i reda za predostavyane na danni za registriranite patni 
prevozni sredstva (Ordinance No I-45 of 24 March 2000 relating to the 
registration, reporting, entry into service and immobilisation of motor vehicles and 
their trailers as well as the suspension, termination and reinstatement of their 
registration, and setting out the procedure for the provision of data relating to 
registered road vehicles, ‘the Ordinance’), following which, under Article 78a(1) 
of the NK, the accused person should be released from criminal liability and an 
administrative penalty in the form of a fine should be imposed on him. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-454/20 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Second paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) Does the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties allow 
national legislation which provides for both administrative and 
criminal liability for the same act, namely driving a motor vehicle that 
is not duly registered, in the absence of any criteria enabling the 
objective assessment of the degree of danger to society? 
(2) Should the Court of Justice answer the first question in the negative, 
what powers does the national court have to ensure the effective 
application of the principles of EU law? 
(3) Does the procedural possibility for the court to acquit the person 
accused of committing a criminal offence and impose an 
administrative penalty on him or her constitute a sufficient safeguard 
against the arbitrary application of the law? 
(4) Is a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of up to a year 
proportionate for the purpose of Article 49(3) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union as regards a criminal 
offence committed by driving a motor vehicle which is not duly 
registered? 
Legal provisions and case-law of the European Union relied on 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: 
Article 5(1) 
Treaty on European Union: Article 6(3) 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Article 90 and Article 91(1)(c) 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article 49 
Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 
2014 on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and 
repealing Directive 2009/40/EC 
Directive 2014/46/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 
2014 amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for 
vehicles 
AZ 
 
3 
Judgment of 3 May 2007, C-305/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW, 
paragraphs 49 and 50 
Judgment of 12 February 2019, C-492/18 PPU, paragraphs 59 and 60 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code): Article 345(2), which sets out the 
constituent elements of a road traffic criminal offence and pursuant to which the 
penalty under paragraph 1 of that article (deprivation of liberty of up to one year 
or a fine of BGN 500 to BGN 1000) is to be imposed also on persons driving a 
motor vehicle that is not duly registered, and Article 78a, which sets out the 
conditions under which the court may release an accused person of full age from 
criminal liability and impose an administrative penalty on him or her. 
Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure): Article 301(1), 
concerning the matters which are to be discussed and decided by the court when 
sentencing, and Article 301(4) and Article 305(6), concerning the imposition of 
an administrative penalty. 
Zakon za dvizhenieto po patishtata (Law on road traffic): Article 140(1), pursuant 
to which only motor vehicles that are registered and have number plates attached 
to the areas designated to that end are allowed on public roads, Article 140(2), 
pursuant to which the conditions and procedure for registration are to be set out in 
an ordinance of the Minister for the Interior, and Article 175(3), which provides 
that a driver of a motor vehicle that is not duly registered or is registered but does 
not have number plates is to be punished by withdrawal of the authorisation to 
drive a motor vehicle for a period of 6 to 12 months and the imposition of a fine of 
BGN 200 to BGN 500. 
NAREDBA No I-45 ot 24.03.2000 za registrirane, otchet, spirane ot dvizhenie i 
puskane v dvizhenie, vremenno otnemane, prekratyavane i vazstanovyavane na 
registratsiyata na motornite prevozni sredstva i remarketa, tegleni ot tyah, i reda za 
predostavyane na danni za registriranite patni prevozni sredstva (ORDINANCE 
No I-45 of 24 March 2000 relating to the registration, reporting, entry into service 
and immobilisation of motor vehicles and their trailers as well as the suspension, 
termination and reinstatement of their registration, and setting out the procedure 
for the provision of data relating to registered road vehicles): Article 1(1), which 
provides that that ordinance sets out the conditions and procedure for registration 
of motor vehicles that are the property of Bulgarian natural and legal persons, and 
Article 1(2), which provides that that ordinance is to apply also to EU citizens and 
their family members. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-454/20 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 29 May 2020, while driving a motorcycle without a number plate, the accused 
person AZ was stopped for a police check. Following a consultation of the system 
of the Ministry of the Interior, it was established that the accused person did not 
have a driving licence and that the motorcycle he was driving was not registered 
in the central ‘Road traffic control’ database of the Ministry of the Interior. 
2 Two notices establishing an administrative offence were issued in respect of AZ, 
including one for driving a motorcycle that was not duly registered and did not 
have a number plate, which constitutes an infringement of Article 140(1) of the 
ZDvP. 
3 In addition, expedited criminal proceedings were brought in respect of a criminal 
offence under Article 345(2) of the NK. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The accused person’s defence submits that the act in question constitutes an 
administrative offence rather than a criminal offence, given the accused person’s 
good character and lack of a prior criminal record. 
5 The document on the basis of which the criminal proceedings were brought does 
not contain any express reasoning of the public prosecutor as to why he considers 
that the act in question represents a danger to society to the extent that it should be 
classified as a criminal rather than an administrative offence. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 In accordance with the recitals of Directive 2014/45/EU and Directive 
2014/46/EU, the registration regime for motor vehicles and the roadworthiness 
tests form part of the EU measures ensuring that motor vehicles are kept in a safe 
condition during their use, and are a guarantee that the authorisation of the vehicle 
to be used in road traffic can be suspended where the motor vehicle constitutes an 
immediate risk to road safety. 
7 The initial registration of a motor vehicle ensures administrative authorisation for 
its entry into service in road traffic. That authorisation may be withdrawn where 
the vehicle’s technical condition constitutes a risk to road safety. 
8 Those rules are transposed into the domestic law of the Republic of Bulgaria by 
the ZDvP and the Ordinance. The two pieces of legislation set out in detail the 
conditions for initial registration as well as for termination, suspension and ex 
officio cancellation. 
AZ 
 
5 
9 The domestic law lays down penalties for infringements of the transposed rules. 
There are two types of liability – administrative and criminal – provided for the 
act of ‘driving on public roads a motor vehicle that is not duly registered’. 
10 The objective elements that constitute the administrative offence under 
Article 175(3) of the ZDvP and the criminal offence under Article 345(2) of the 
NK fully overlap. 
11 The domestic law does not provide for any objective criteria enabling a 
determination of the degree of danger to society, on the basis of which a specific 
act can be classified as either an administrative or a criminal offence. Nor is there 
any consideration of the various situations that must lead to a conclusion that a 
motor vehicle is not duly registered – lack of initial registration, registration that 
has been cancelled ex officio, registration that has been suspended as a result of 
technical issues, expired temporary registration, etc. 
12 The lack of clarity as regards which circumstances increase the danger to society 
to an extent that the act is to be regarded as a criminal rather than an 
administrative offence leads to divergent case-law. Three groups of judicial 
decisions can be identified: (1) those in which the courts agree with the public 
prosecutor’s view that the act constitutes a criminal offence; (2) those in which the 
courts acquit the accused persons of the charges, taking the view that the act does 
not constitute a criminal offence but an administrative offence, in respect of which 
the courts impose the penalty provided for in the ZDvP; (3) those which result 
from appeals against orders imposing administrative penalties on the persons in 
respect of administrative offences and from which it is apparent that those orders 
were made after the public prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings. 
13 In the light of the national legislation and the case-law cited, the referring court 
expresses doubts whether the Bulgarian law, which provides for criminal liability 
for infringements of the motor vehicle registration regime, which forms part of the 
common transport policy of the European Union, is in line with the principle of 
legality of criminal offences and penalties and with the requirement of 
proportionality. 
14 In the judgment of 3 May 2007, C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW, in 
paragraphs 49 and 50, the Court of Justice recalled that ‘the principle of the 
legality of criminal offences and penalties (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege), 
which is one of the general legal principles underlying the constitutional traditions 
common to the Member States, has also been enshrined in various international 
treaties, in particular in Article 7(1) of the European Convention for the Protection 
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see in this regard, inter alia, Joined 
Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 X [1996] ECR I-6609, paragraph 25, and Joined 
Cases C-189/02 P, C-202/02 P, C-205/02 P to C-208/02 P and C-213/02 P Dansk 
Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I-5425, paragraphs 215 to 
219). This principle implies that legislation must define clearly offences and the 
penalties which they attract. That condition is met in the case where the individual 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-454/20 
 
6  
concerned is in a position, on the basis of the wording of the relevant provision 
and with the help of the interpretative assistance given by the courts, to know 
which acts or omissions will make him criminally liable (see, inter alia, European 
Court of Human Rights judgment of 22 June 2000 in Coëme and Others v 
Belgium, Reports 2000-VII, § 145).’ 
15 In addition, the referring court takes account of the Court’s interpretation, in 
paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment of 12 February 2019, C-492/18 PPU, of the 
requirements of clarity and predictability to the effect that ‘the objective of the 
safeguards relating to liberty, such as those enshrined in both Article 6 of the 
Charter and Article 5 ECHR, consist in particular in the protection of the 
individual against arbitrariness. Thus, if the execution of a measure depriving a 
person of liberty is to be in keeping with the objective of protecting the individual 
from arbitrariness, this means, in particular, that there can be no element of bad 
faith or deception on the part of the authorities (judgment of 15 March 2017, Al 
Chodor, C-528/15, EU:C:2017:213, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). … 
[S]ince keeping a requested person in detention … represents a serious 
interference with that person’s right to liberty, it is subject to compliance with 
strict safeguards, namely the existence of a legal basis which justifies that 
continued detention and which must meet the requirements of clarity, 
predictability and accessibility in order to avoid any risk of arbitrariness, as 
paragraph 58 of the present judgment makes clear (see, to that effect, judgment of 
15 March 2017, Al Chodor, C-528/15, EU:C:2017:213, paragraph 40 and the 
case-law cited)’. 
16 Since one of the penalties provided for in Article 345(2) of the NK is the 
deprivation of liberty, the referring court also takes account of the criteria required 
by the European Convention for Human Rights in respect of the lawfulness of all 
deprivation of liberty: the deprivation of liberty must be provided for by law, the 
national law must meet the requirements set out in the Convention as regards 
quality (it must be sufficiently determinable and certain), the application of the 
law must be in line with the general principles of the Convention and the persons 
must be protected against arbitrariness. 
17 In the judgment in Medvedyev v. France, the European Court of Human Rights 
stated that the standard of lawfulness ‘requires that all law be sufficiently precise 
to avoid all risk of arbitrariness and to allow the citizen – if need be, with 
appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances 
of the case, the consequence which a given action may entail’.