Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2019:959
Date: 2019-11-12
Language of the case: Polish
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Południe w Gdańsku (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. in Gdańsk (Case C-183/18) 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. in Gdańsk Questions referred Should the provisions of Article 1(a), Article 9(3) and Article 20(1) and (2)(b) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties 1 be interpreted as meaning that a decision transmitted for execution which imposes a financial penalty on a legal person should be executed in the executing State despite the fact that the national provisions implementing that framework decision do not provide for the possibility of executing a decision which imposes such a penalty on a legal person? In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question, must the term ‘legal person’ as used in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA be interpreted: a. in accordance with the law of the issuing State (Article 1(c)); b. in accordance with the law of the executing State (Article 1(d)); c. as an autonomous concept of EU law, and, as a consequence, does it also cover a branch of a legal person notwithstanding the fact that that branch does not have legal personality in the executing State? ____________ 1 OJ 2005 L 76, pp 16-30.