Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:371
Date: 2023-05-04
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-97/21 – 1 
Case C-97/21 
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:  
16 February 2021 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Administrative Court, 
Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria)  
Date of the decision to refer:  
12 February 2021  
Applicant:  
МV – 98 
Defendant:  
Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ – grad Sofia v glavna 
direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na 
Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (Head of the Department 
‘Operational Activities’ – City of Sofia – in the Directorate-General 
for ‘Fiscal Supervision’ within the Central Administration of the 
National Revenue Agency)  
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action brought against the order issued by the tax authorities pursuant to the 
Zakon za danaka varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax) to impose 
coercive administrative measures, namely the ‘sealing of business premises’ 
managed by a trader for a period of 14 days and the ‘prohibition of access thereto’ 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Request under Article 267 TFEU for an interpretation of Articles 47(1), 49(3), 50 
and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-97/21  
 
2  
Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the 
common system of value added tax 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Are Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on 
the common system of value added tax and Article 50 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding 
national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for 
an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having 
recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings 
for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty 
proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the 
same person in a cumulative manner? 
1.1. If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 273 of Council 
Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value 
added tax and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in 
the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered 
the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the 
sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative 
measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets 
penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner, taking 
account of the fact that that legislation does not at the same time impose on the 
authorities competent for conducting the two sets of proceedings and on the courts 
the obligation to ensure the effective application of the principle of proportionality 
with regard to the overall severity of all the cumulated measures in relation to the 
seriousness of the specific offence? 
2. If Articles 50 and 52(1) of the Charter are found not to be applicable in the 
present case, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 
2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 49(3) of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding a 
national provision such as Article 186(1) of the ZDDS [Zakon za danak varhu 
dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax)], which, for an offence consisting 
in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a 
document evidencing the sale, provides for the imposition on the same person of 
the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period 
of up to 30 days in addition to the imposition of an assets penalty under 
Article 185(2) of the ZDDS? 
3. Is Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
to be interpreted as not precluding measures introduced by the national legislature 
in order to safeguard the interest under Article 273 of Council Directive 
2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, 
MV – 98 
 
3 
such as the provisional enforcement of the coercive administrative measure of 
‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in order to protect a 
presumed public interest, where judicial protection against that measure is limited 
to an assessment of a comparable private interest opposing that public interest? 
Legislation and case-law of the European Union 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47(1), 
Article 49(3), Article 50, Article 51(1) and (2), Article 52(1); 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax – Article 2(1) and Article 273; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission, 
46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères, С-94/00, 
EU:C:2002:603; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 June 2012, Bonda, С-489/10, 
EU:C:2012:319; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, С-
617/10, EU:C:2013:105; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2014, Spasic, С-129/14, 
EU:C:2014:586; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2017, Orsi and Baldetti, С-217/15 and 
С-350/15, EU:C:2017:264; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 March 2018, Garlsson Real Estate and 
Others, С-537/16, EU:C:2018:193; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 March 2018, Menci, С-524/15, 
EU:C:2018:197; 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 May 2018, Zheng, С-190/17, 
EU:C:2018:357; 
Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017, Marine Harvest v 
Commission, Т-704/14, EU:T:2017:753. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks (Code of administrative procedure) – 
Article 6, Article 57(1), (4) and (5), Article 60, Article 90(1), Article 128(1)(1), 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-97/21  
 
4  
Article 132(1), Article 145(1), Article 146, Article 166(1), (2) and (3), 
Article 172(2), Article 268(1) and (2); 
Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Tax and Social Insurance Procedure 
Code) Article 50(1); 
Targovski zakon (Law on commerce) – Article 1(1)(1), Article 56; 
Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania (Law on administrative 
offences and penalties) – Articles 16, 22 and 27, Article 34(3), Article 36(1), 
Article 42, Article 44(1), Article 53(1), Article 59(1) and (2), Article 63(1); 
Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax) – Article 1, 
Article 2(1), Article 3(1) and (2), Article 118(1), Article 185(1), (2), (4) and (5), 
Article 186(1)(1)(a), (3) and (4), Article 187(1), Article 188, Article 193(1) and 
(2), and Paragraph 1(40), and Paragraph 1a of the Dopalnitelni razporedbi 
(Additional provisions): 
– Article 118(1), in the version applicable to the facts of the case in the main 
proceedings: 
‘(1) Every person registered or not registered under this law is obliged to register 
and record the supplies/sales made by him or her on business premises by issuing 
a fiscal cash register receipt by means of a fiscal memory device (fiscal receipt) … 
.’ 
– Article 185(1) and (2), in the version applicable to the facts of the case in the 
main proceedings: 
‘(1) Any person who fails to issue a document in accordance with Article 118(1) 
shall be subject to a fine of 100 to 500 leva (BGN) in the case of natural persons 
who are not traders, or an assets penalty of 500 to 2 000 leva (BGN) in the case of 
legal persons or sole traders. 
(2) Except for the cases referred to in paragraph 1, any person who commits or 
permits an offence under Article 118 or a provision implementing it shall be 
subject to a fine of 300 to 1 000 leva (BGN) in the case of natural persons who are 
not traders, or an assets penalty of 3 000 to 10 000 leva (BGN) in the case of legal 
persons or sole traders. Where the offence does not result in failure to declare 
revenue, the penalties under paragraph 1 shall be imposed.’ 
– Article 186(1)(1)(a), in the version applicable to the facts of the case in the 
main proceedings: 
‘(1) The coercive administrative measure of the sealing of business premises for a 
period of up to 30 days shall be ordered, irrespective of the fines and assets 
penalties provided for, against any person who: 
MV – 98 
 
5 
1. fails to comply with the procedure or methodology in relation to the following: 
а) the issuance of a document evidencing the sale concerned in accordance with 
the formalities laid down for supplies/sales; 
…’ 
– Article 187(1), in the version applicable to the facts of the case in the main 
proceedings: 
‘(1) Where a coercive administrative measure is ordered pursuant to 
Article 186(1), access to the person’s business premiss or premises shall also be 
prohibited …’ 
– Article 188, in the version applicable to the facts of the case in the main 
proceedings: 
‘The coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) shall be provisionally 
enforceable under the conditions of the Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks 
(Code of administrative procedure).’; 
Naredba Nº N-18 ot 13.12.2006 za registrirane i otchitane chrez fiskalni 
ustroystva na prodazhbite v targovskite obekti, iziskvaniata kam softuerite za 
upravlenieto im i iziskvania kam litsata, koito izvarshvat prodazhbi chrez 
elektronen magazin (Ordinance No N-18 of 13 December 2006 on the registration 
and recording of sales on business premises by means of fiscal memory devices, 
the requirements for the operating software and the requirements for persons 
making sales via online shops) – Article 3(1), as well as Paragraph 1(6) of the 
Dopalnitelni razporedbi (Additional provisions). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant is a sole trader registered under the Targovski zakon (Law on 
commerce) and entered in the Commercial Register, having his registered office in 
the town of Gotse Delchev, Bulgaria. His main activity is the purchase and sale of 
goods. 
2 On 9 October 2019, inspectors from the Natsionalna agentsia po prihodite 
(National Revenue Agency) carried out an inspection at a business premises 
managed by the applicant. 
3 A ‘control purchase of goods’ was performed during the inspection, that is to say, 
before identifying themselves, the inspectors bought a packet of cigarettes worth 
5.20 Bulgarian leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 2.66), which they paid for in 
cash. The applicant accepted the payment but did not issue a fiscal cash register 
receipt by means of a fiscal memory device. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-97/21  
 
6  
4 The inspectors found that the fiscal memory device recorded sales totalling 
BGN 141.20 (approximately EUR 72.20) that day, whereas there was actually 
BGN 166.40 (approximately EUR 85.08) in the cash register. According to the 
inspectors, the difference between those two amounts also confirms that the sale 
of the pack of cigarettes that they purchased was not registered and was not 
recorded via the issuance of a fiscal receipt using a fiscal memory device on the 
premises. 
5 On the same day, a notice establishing an administrative offence was issued, by 
which administrative penalty proceedings were instituted against the applicant 
under the provisions of the Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania 
(Law on administrative offences and penalties; ‘the ZANN’) for an administrative 
offence in breach of Article 118(1) of the Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata 
stoynost (Law on value added tax; ‘the ZDDS’). Failure to comply with the 
abovementioned provision is punishable by an assets penalty pursuant to 
Article 185(2) of the ZDDS, whereby Article 186(1)(1)(a) of that law also 
provides for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure in addition to that 
penalty. 
6 On 21 October 2019, the defendant ordered a coercive administrative measure 
pursuant to Article 186(1)(1)(a) and Article 187(1) of the ZDDS, namely the 
‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of 14 days and ‘prohibition of access 
thereto’. 
7 By its order, the defendant also ordered provisional enforcement, as it found that 
the latter was ‘necessary to protect particularly important State interests, namely 
the interest of the State budget in the proper registration and recording of sales by 
the taxpayer by means of a fiscal recording device on the business premises 
inspected, and in the correct determination of the revenue generated by that 
taxpayer and the amount of his or her debt to the State’. 
8 The order was challenged before the referring court. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 The applicant takes the view that the coercive administrative measure ordered is 
contrary to the objectives of Article 22 of the ZANN, which provides for the 
application of such measures in order to prevent and bring an end to 
administrative offences and to prevent and eliminate their harmful effects. The 
applicant refers to the low value of the sale in question and the fact that it is the 
first time that he has infringed Article 118(1) of the ZDDS. 
10 The defendant submits that, in relation to the offence established, 
Article 186(1)(1)(a) of the ZDDS provides for the cumulative application of 
coercive administrative measures of the type specified in the contested order. 
MV – 98 
 
7 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 The referring court has doubts as to the compatibility with Articles 50 and 52(1) 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and 
the principle of proportionality under Article 49(3) of the Charter of the 
cumulation of a coercive administrative measure with an assets penalty against the 
same person for the same offence. 
12 The ZDDS expressly states that that law transposes the provisions of Directive 
2006/112. Therefore, the referring court takes the view that the application of the 
ZDDS, including the penalty measures under the ZDDS, constitutes 
implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, 
since it is recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice that the imposition of 
administrative penalties by the national tax authorities in the field of VAT 
constitutes application of Article 2 and Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 and, 
therefore, of EU law, with the result that they must respect the fundamental right 
guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter. 
13 Failure to comply with the obligation under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS by legal 
persons and sole traders who are taxable persons is declared an administrative 
offence in Article 185(2) of the ZDDS and is punishable by an assets penalty 
under that provision. 
14 At the same time, however, that law also provides for the ordering of a coercive 
administrative measure pursuant to Article 186(1)(1)(a) of the ZDDS in the event 
of failure to fulfil the obligation under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS, namely the 
‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days. The measure is 
applied irrespective of the assets penalty provided for, and, where that measure is 
ordered, the person is also prohibited from accessing the business premises. 
15 Both measures – the assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS and the 
coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1)(1)(a) of the ZDDS – are 
ordered for the same factual act, namely failure to comply with the requirements 
in respect of the issuing a document evidencing the sale concerned in the form of 
a fiscal cash register receipt by means of a fiscal memory device. 
16 Article 185(2) of the ZDDS penalises the failure to fulfil with the obligation to 
issue a document evidencing the sale of goods as an administrative offence and 
applies to all cases, irrespective of the value of the sale. Similarly, the measure 
under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS also applies to all cases involving an offence 
under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS, irrespective of the value of the sale. Their 
simultaneous application is provided for by law for all cases of failure to fulfil the 
obligation under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS. 
17 Both proceedings, that is to say, those for imposing an assets penalty and those for 
ordering the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’, 
are conducted by bodies within the structure of the Natsionalna agentsia po 
prihodite (National Revenue Agency), but follow different rules of procedure. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-97/21  
 
8  
18 The proceedings for establishing and penalising an infringement of Article 118(1) 
of the ZDDS are initiated in accordance with the Zakon za administrativnite 
narushenia i nakazania (Law on administrative offences and penalties). They 
begin with the issuance of a notice establishing an administrative offence and end 
with the issuance of a penalty notice imposing an assets penalty under 
Article 185(2) of the ZDDS. 
19 The assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS is imposed in criminal 
proceedings. In the case that is the subject matter of the main proceedings, they 
were instituted against the sole trader by means of the notice establishing an 
administrative offence that was issued. The penalty notice imposing the assets 
penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS is a notice of a punitive nature. 
20 The assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS is not confined to making 
reparation for the damage caused by the offence (in the form of the unpaid VAT 
for the unrecorded sale of a pack of cigarettes worth BGN 5.20), but aims to 
penalise the failure to fulfil the obligation under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS, in 
view of the seriousness of that failure. 
21 The coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS is applied 
in administrative proceedings, but is punitive in nature. The measure does not 
serve to secure other proceedings (for example, to establish tax debts), but 
penalises the failure to fulfil the obligation under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS. In 
view of the consequences for the economic activities of the sole trader (cessation 
of activities on the business premises), the measure under Article 186(1) of the 
ZDDS has not only a preventive but also a deterrent effect, namely that of 
discouraging the reduction of turnover by not issuing documents evidencing sales. 
22 It is precisely the cumulation of various types of coercive State measures forming 
the subject matter of the main proceedings in the present case – which penalise the 
same act in fact and in law and not individual aspects thereof and which pursue 
common objectives as opposed to complementary objectives – that raises doubts 
as to the compatibility of the national law with the principles of EU law and, in 
particular, with Article 50 of the Charter. 
23 In particular, the referring court has doubts as to whether the cumulation of the 
coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS with the assets 
penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS comes within the scope of Article 50 of 
the Charter and whether it complies with the principle of proportionality under 
Article 52(1) of the Charter. 
24 The Court of Justice has clarified that the duplication of penalties … requires rules 
allowing it to be guaranteed that the severity of all of the penalties imposed 
corresponds with the seriousness of the offence concerned … Those rules must 
provide for the obligation for the competent authorities, in the event of the 
imposition of a second penalty, to ensure that the severity of all of the penalties 
imposed does not exceed the seriousness of the offence identified’ (judgment of 
MV – 98 
 
9 
20 March 2018, Menci, С-524/15, EU:C:2018:197, paragraph 55). In addition, the 
administrative or punitive measures permitted under national legislation must not 
go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued 
by that legislation (judgment of 31 May 2018, Zheng, С-190/17, EU:C:2018:357, 
paragraphs 41 and 42 and the case‑ law cited). 
25 National law does not provide for a limitation of the cumulation of an assets 
penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS with a coercive administrative measure 
under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS by virtue of the value of the sale not registered 
by issuing a fiscal cash register receipt (BGN 5.20 in the main proceedings) and/or 
of the amount of unpaid VAT. The exercise of such power by the tax authorities 
competent for applying the two measures constitutes a non-discretionary decision. 
In cases where an offence under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS is established, the 
law obliges those authorities to order the coercive administrative measure under 
Article 186(1) of the ZDDS in addition to and independently of the imposition of 
an assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS. 
26 The procedural laws (the ZANN and the Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks 
[Code of Administrative Procedure]) which govern the two independent 
proceedings – for imposing an assets penalty and for ordering a coercive 
administrative measure – do not provide for the possibility to suspend one of those 
sets of proceedings until conclusion of the other. 
27 Under those circumstances, it is not ruled out that the order for the measure under 
Article 186(1) of the ZDDS is enforced before the conclusion of the 
administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty under 
Article 185(2) of the ZDDS. This is due, on the one hand, to the possibility 
provided by law to allow the provisional enforcement of the order imposing the 
measure and, on the other hand, to the different durations of the two independent 
proceedings. Under national law, the time limit for concluding the administrative 
penalty proceedings with the issuance of a penalty notice is 6 months from the 
adoption of the administrative decision, whereas the time limit for issuing an order 
for a coercive administrative measure is 14 days to one month. 
28 Furthermore, the different proceedings for issuing a decision imposing a penalty 
under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS (administrative penalty procedure) and a 
decision ordering a coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the 
ZDDS (administrative procedure) require different procedures for legal protection 
against those decisions. 
29 The Rayonen sad (District Court) has jurisdiction to rule on actions against 
penalty notices imposing an assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS, 
whereas the Administrativen sad (Administrative Court) has jurisdiction for 
actions against orders imposing coercive administrative measures under 
Article 186(1) of the ZDDS. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-97/21  
 
10  
30 Within the framework of the two separate court proceedings, the Rayonen sad 
(District Court) and the Administrativen sad (Administrative Court) can however 
assess, independently of each other, the proportionality of the assets penalty or the 
coercive administrative measure. In assessing the proportionality of the assets 
penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS, the Rayonen sad is bound by the 
minimum amount provided for and cannot set it lower depending on the specific 
circumstances. The assessment of the proportionality of the coercive 
administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS is possible only with 
regard to its duration, as its application per se is mandatory. 
31 Since the two sets of court proceedings run in parallel and independently of each 
other and also take place at different times, it cannot be ruled out that the offence 
will be assessed differently. It is possible that the Administrative Court dismisses 
the action brought against the coercive administrative measure under 
Article 186(1) of the ZDDS while the District Court annuls the assets penalty 
under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS in the court proceedings brought to challenge to 
the penalty notice, as it finds that an offence under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS 
has not been committed or has not been proven. 
32 The referring court therefore has doubts as to whether the simultaneous imposition 
of an assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS and an order for a coercive 
administrative measure under Article 186(1)(1)(a) of the ZDDS for the same 
offence against the same person complies with the principle of proportionality 
under Article 52(1) of the Charter, since the review carried out by the respective 
courts in separate proceedings does not ensure that the overall severity of the two 
measures is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence concerned. 
33 If the scope of application of Articles 50 and 52 of the Charter does not cover the 
cumulation of the coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the 
ZDDS with the assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS for the same 
offence (in the present case, for an offence under Article 118(1) of the ZDDS) 
against the same person, the referring court asks, alternatively, whether the 
ordering of a coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS 
in addition to, and independently of, the imposition of an assets penalty under 
Article 185(2) of the ZDDS against the same person is proportionate in the light of 
Article 49(3) of the Charter. In view of the broad interpretation that the Court of 
Justice has given to the term ‘criminal offence’ within the meaning of 
Article 49(3) of the Charter, that provision appears to be applicable in the main 
proceedings. 
34 In the case that is the subject matter of the main proceedings, the tax authority also 
authorised, on the basis of Article 188 of the ZDDS, the provisional enforcement 
of the order for a coercive administrative measure under Article 186(1) of the 
ZDDS. Under national law, that order constitutes a derogation from the principle 
of enforcement of administrative acts only after they have become final and 
thereby overcomes the prohibition on their enforcement before the expiry of the 
period for challenging them. 
MV – 98 
 
11 
35 Legal protection against the order can be obtained only before an administrative 
court by way of a separate action, combined with an application for the suspension 
of the provisional enforcement. In those proceedings, the administrative court 
does not conduct an ‘investigation’ of the facts of the case. They are deemed to 
have been established by the report drawn up on the inspection conducted by the 
tax authorities on the business premises and by the notice establishing an 
administrative offence that was issued. 
36 At the same time, as regards the scope of legal protection against the provisional 
enforcement of the measure under Article 186(1) of the ZDDS, the provision of 
Article 188 of the ZDDS creates conditions for inconsistent interpretation in the 
case-law. In some cases, it is assumed that judicial protection against the order of 
provisional enforcement also includes an assessment of whether there is an 
‘important State interest’, whereas in other cases an ‘important state interest’ is 
presumed, which must be countered by a comparable private interest that has been 
demonstrated. 
37 It is not ruled out that the legal consequences of an order for a coercive 
administrative measure under Article 186(1)(1)(a) of the ZDDS, which has been 
declared provisionally enforceable, materialise and the order is subsequently 
annulled by the court as unlawful. 
38 Therefore, in the view of the referring court, it is not clearly apparent whether, in 
the light of Article 47(1) of the Charter, the judicial remedy provided for in 
national law against the authorised provisional enforcement of a coercive 
administrative measure under Article 186(1)(1)(a) of the ZDDS constitutes an 
effective remedy.