Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2024:307
Date: 2024-04-11
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: General provisions;External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

summary, I consider that the activity of interpretation in the context of an authentication procedure cannot be regarded as a ‘legal advisory service’ within the meaning of Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014, and therefore does not fall within the scope of that provision. V. Conclusion 108. On the basis of the analysis set out above, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court, Berlin, Germany) as follows: (1) Article 5n(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine must be interpreted as meaning that the authentication by a notary of a contract of sale of immovable property owned by a legal person established in Russia is not covered by the prohibition laid down in that provision, as long as the engagement in transactions is allowed for that person under that regulation and the authentication is not supplemented by legal advice, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. (2) Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the services provided by an interpreter in the course of the authentication by a notary of a contract of sale of immovable property owned by a legal person established in Russia are not covered by the prohibition laid down in that provision. (3) Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the execution by a notary of an authenticated contract of sale of immovable property owned by a legal person established in Russia, consisting, in particular, in ensuring the safe custody of the purchase monies and the payment thereof, the cancellation of the existing encumbrances burdening the property, and the registration in the land register of the transfer of title in favour of the new owners, does not fall within the scope of application of the prohibition laid down in that provision, as long as the engagement in transactions is allowed for that person under that regulation and those tasks do not entail any legal advice, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. 1 Original language: English. i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 2 Council Regulation of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1). 3 Council Regulation of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2022 L 259I, p. 3). 4 ‘Guidance on the implementation of Regulation No 833/2014’, available at https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/provision-services_en, pp. 14 and 15. 5 Judgment of 29 February 2024, JF (Conversion religieuse ultérieure) (C‑222/22, EU:C:2024:192, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited). 6 Judgment of 22 February 2024, Landkreis Jerichower Land (C‑85/23, EU:C:2024:161, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited). 7 See, as regards the German legal system, judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Germany (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraphs 18 and 90). See also judgments of 24 May 2011, Commission v Belgium (C‑47/08, EU:C:2011:334, paragraphs 14 and 89); of 24 May 2011, Commission v France (C‑50/08, EU:C:2011:335, paragraphs 10 and 79); of 24 May 2011, Commission v Luxembourg (C‑51/08, EU:C:2011:336, paragraphs 13 and 89); of 24 May 2011, Commission v Austria (C‑53/08, EU:C:2011:338, paragraphs 17 and 88); of 24 May 2011, Commission v Greece (C‑61/08, EU:C:2011:340, paragraphs 15 and 81); of 1 December 2011, Commission v Netherlands (C‑157/09, EU:C:2011:794, paragraphs 9 and 62); and of 10 September 2015, Commission v Latvia (C‑151/14, EU:C:2015:577, paragraph 57). 8 See, inter alia, judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Germany (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraphs 90 and 91). 9 See, by way of illustration, Council of the Notariats of the European Union, Authentic Acts in Europe, available at http://www.authentic-acts.eu/. 10 Judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Germany (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraph 91). 11 See footnote 7 to the present Opinion. 12 Judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Germany (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraph 91). 13 See, for instance, the definition of the term ‘advice’ in the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/advice. 14 Judgment of 1 February 2017, Commission v Hungary (C‑392/15, EU:C:2017:73, paragraph 126). 15 Judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Germany (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraph 99). 16 See points 90 to 100 of the present Opinion. 17 Judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Germany (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraph 90). 18 See also recital 19 of Regulation 2022/1904, which refers to activities carried out in relation to ‘customers’ and/or ‘clients’. 19 Judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others (283/81, EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 20). 20 See, in that regard, judgment of 9 March 2017, Piringer (C‑342/15, EU:C:2017:196, paragraph 58). 21 Judgment of 24 May 2011 (C‑54/08, EU:C:2011:339, paragraph 25). 22 See, in that regard, judgment of 9 March 2017, Piringer (C‑342/15, EU:C:2017:196, paragraph 59). 23 Ibid. (paragraph 58). 24 I should briefly observe that the previous consideration applies only to Member States in which there is notarial intervention for the transfer of the ownership right of immovable property. As regards Member States in which that is not the case, it suffices to note that, since that situation is not the subject of the present case, such an analysis should only be performed, if required, within the framework of a specific request for a preliminary ruling concerning those particular systems. 25 Council Regulation of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6). 26 See, in that regard, judgment of 30 July 1996, Bosphorus (C‑84/95, EU:C:1996:312, paragraph 22). 27 See footnote 4 to the present Opinion. 28 Council Decision of 6 October 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 259I, p. 122). 29 Recitals 1 to 9 of Decision 2022/1909. 30 See the press release of 6 October 2022, ‘Ukraine: EU agrees on eighth package of sanctions against Russia’, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5989. 31 That article was initially inserted in Regulation No 833/2014 by Council Regulation (EU) 2022/879 of 3 June 2022 (OJ 2022 L 153, p. 53) following the ‘sixth package of sanctions’. 32 See also recital 16 of Regulation 2022/1904. 33 See recital 12 of Decision 2022/1909, which declares that it is appropriate to extend the existing prohibition on the provision of certain services ‘to the Russian Federation’. See also, in that regard, Council of the European Union, ‘What EU services to Russia are banned?’ in EU sanctions against Russia explained, available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/sanctions-against-russia-explained/#services. 34 See Article 12 of Regulation No 833/2014. See also European Commission, Questions and Answers on the eighth package of restrictive measures against Russia, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_5990. 35 See also recital 19 of Regulation 2022/1904. 36 See point 58 of the present Opinion. 37 See European Land Registry Association, ‘Responsible Agency’, available at https://www.elra.eu/facts-sheets/description-of-land-registration-systems/responsible-agency/. 38 See points 56 to 58 of this Opinion. 39 See also Malavet, P.A., ‘Counsel for the situation: The Latin notary, a historical and comparative model’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 19(3), 1996, p. 455. 40 See also Wilsch, H., ‘The German “Grundbuchordnung”: History, principles and future about land registry in Germany’, Fachbeitrag, Vol. 137, 2012, p. 228. 41 See, to that effect, judgment of 1 October 2015, ERSTE Bank Hungary (C‑32/14, EU:C:2015:637, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). 42 Judgment of 1 February 2017, Commission v Hungary (C‑392/15, EU:C:2017:73, paragraph 118). 43 As for the German system, see Wilsch, H., op. cit., p. 227, and Christian, H. and Hartmut, W., ‘Real property law and procedure in the European Union – National report: Germany’, European University Institute, 2005, pp. 11 and 14. 44 See, for instance, Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community, ‘Encumbrances and restrictions in the land register deletion’, available at https://verwaltung.bund.de/leistungsverzeichnis/EN/leistung/99043017064000/herausgeber/BB-109438956/region/12. 45 See points 32 and 43 of the present Opinion.