Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:419
Date: 2025-06-05
Language of the case: Czech
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Translation C-18/24 – 1 
Case C-18/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
11 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) 
Date of decision to refer: 
29 December 2023 
Applicant: 
NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS Versicherungsgesellschaft, 
NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS Poisťovňa a.s. 
Defendant: 
Česká národní banka 
… 
[…] [national proceedings   ORDER 
The Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic) […] 
has ruled in the case of the applicant: NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS 
Versicherungsgesellschaft, NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS 
Poisťovňa a.s., having its registered office at […] Bratislava, […], against the 
defendant: Česká národní banka (Czech National Bank, Czech Republic), 
having its registered office at […] Prague 1, with respect to the action challenging 
the decision of the Czech National Bank of 21 January 2021, ref. no. 
2021/007794/ CNB/110/01, in proceedings concerning the applicant’s appeal in 
cassation against a judgment of the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court) of 
19 October 2022, ref. no. 6 Af 9/2021-105, 
as follows: 
I. The following questions are hereby submitted to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Must Article 155 of Directive […] 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) be 
interpreted such that it also applies to cases of supervision by the 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 12. 2023 – CASE C-18/24 
 
2  
supervisory authority of a host State over compliance, by an 
insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the 
obligations laid down by Regulation No 1286/2014 (PRIIPs) or 
based on Directive […] 2016/97 (IDD)? 
2. If so, does Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive imply priority 
powers for the supervisory authority of the home State, and the 
obligation on the part of the supervisory authority of the host State 
to first exhaust the notification and remedial procedures under 
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of that article of the directive, even in the 
case of imposing administrative sanctions under paragraphs 5 and 
6 of that article of the directive? 
II. […] [national proceedings] 
Grounds: 
I. Subject matter of the proceedings 
1 The applicant is a Slovak commercial company and an insurance undertaking 
operating in the field of life insurance. The applicant has a branch office in the 
Czech Republic, in Prague, under the right of establishment. The defendant is the 
supervisory authority of the Czech Republic as host Member State of the 
European Union. The defendant found the applicant guilty of three offences, for 
which it imposed a fine of CZK 1,000,000. 
2 The first offence consisted of a breach of the obligations under Article 6(1) and 
Article 8(3)(c)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (f) of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on key information documents for 
packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (‘the PRIIPs 
Regulation’) and was examined pursuant to Paragraph 179(1) of the zákon č. 
256/2004 Sb., o podnikání na kapitálovém trhu (Law 256/2004 on engaging in 
business on the capital market) (‘the CML’). Concretely, according to the 
defendant, the applicant failed to ensure that the information in its Key 
Information Documents (‘KIDs’) about its products was accurate, fair, clear, 
consistent with any binding contractual documents, and not misleading, and, 
furthermore, that the key information documents contain all the information, in 
the quality and scope required by directly applicable European Union legislation. 
3 The second and third offences consisted in breaches of the obligations laid down 
by zákon č. 170/2018 Sb., o distribuci pojištění a zajištění (Law 170/2018 on the 
distribution of insurance and reinsurance) (‘the IRDL’), which transposes 
Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council […] on 
insurance distribution (‘the IDD’). The second offence was examined on the basis 
of Paragraph 110(1)(c) of the IRDL and consisted in the applicant breaching the 
obligations of an insurance undertaking to lay down, maintain, and apply rules for 
the control of the activities of independent intermediaries acting for it, focusing on 
oversight of due compliance with the law, as set out in Paragraph 48(1)(a) of that 
NOVIS 
 
3 
law. The third offence was examined on the basis of Paragraph 114(1)(l) IRDL 
and consisted in the applicant breaching the obligation to provide advice to the 
customer before arranging reserve-forming insurance laid down in Paragraph 78 
of that law. 
4 In the administrative proceedings, the defendant examined the applicant’s 
objection that the defendant lacked jurisdiction to conduct infringement 
proceedings, referring to Paragraph 110 of zákon č. 277/2009 Sb., o pojišťovnictví 
(Law 277/2009 on the insurance sector) (‘the IL’), transposing Article 155 of 
Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council […] on the 
taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (‘the Solvency 
II Directive’), which, in its view, regulates the uniform supervision of insurance 
undertakings from other Member States. According to the applicant, the 
defendant, as the supervisory authority of the host State, did not proceed in line 
with the provisions of the law and directive cited above, failed to inform the 
supervisory authority of the home state about the alleged breach of legal 
regulations in the host Member State, and did not wait for any appropriate 
measures by that authority, in order for the applicant to remedy the situation. In 
the applicant’s view, the defendant was thus not authorised to automatically 
conduct sanction proceedings in respect of the applicant by itself. By contrast, the 
defendant considers that the regulation of supervision in the CML and the IRDL 
constitutes separate legislation (modelled on European regulations other than the 
Solvency II Directive), and is therefore independent of the regulation of 
supervision under the IL. According to the defendant, the special provisions of the 
CML and IRDL take precedence over the regulation set out in the IL. In the 
defendant’s opinion, the applicant infringed obligations arising from the CML and 
the IRDL, for which it has been directly penalised, and not obligations under the 
IL. 
5 In the contested judgment referred to above, the Prague City Court found no merit 
in the plea and dismissed the action. The City Court upheld the defendant’s 
finding that the IL, which regulates general conditions in the insurance sector, 
which the applicant did not breach, should not be applied, and that it was 
necessary to apply exclusively the CML and IRDL, which regulate specialised 
segments of services provided by insurance undertakings, which were concerned 
by the offences committed by the applicant. 
6 In its judicial review of the contested judgment of the Prague City Court, the 
Supreme Administrative Court is called upon to address the argument in cassation 
submitted by the applicant (now the complainant) that Paragraph 110 of the IL, 
which is based on Article [155] of the Solvency II Directive, must be applied in 
the exercise of any supervision pertaining to the insurance business. In the view of 
the complainant, both Paragraph 110 of the IL and Article 115 of the Solvency II 
Directive refer generally to a failure to comply with obligations/provisions, and 
thus are not limited to breaches of obligations under the IL or, as the case may be, 
of obligations imposed by legislation pursuant to the Solvency II Directive. Even 
though the complainant was penalised for a breach of the CML and IRDL, that 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 12. 2023 – CASE C-18/24 
 
4  
still concerned a breach of obligations in the course of insurance-related activities. 
In the complainant’s view, neither the PRIIPs Regulation (and the CML, which 
follows from it on the national level) nor the IDD (and the IRDL, which 
implements it nationally) constitute regulations that are independent of the basic 
insurance industry regulations; rather, they are regulations that are complementary 
to and inseparably linked with the provisions of the IL (implementing the 
Solvency II Directive), which should have been applied in the case. According to 
the complainant, failure by the defendant to apply Paragraph 110 of the IL 
resulted in the administrative decision rendered by it being unlawful. 
II. Applicable European Union and national legislation 
7 Pursuant to Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive which, according to its 
heading, regulates the steps to be taken in cases when insurance undertakings do 
not comply with legal provisions, the following applies: 
Where the supervisory authorities of a host Member State establish that an 
insurance undertaking with a branch or pursuing business under the freedom to 
provide services in its territory is not complying with the legal provisions 
applicable to it in that Member State, they shall require the insurance undertaking 
concerned to remedy such irregularity (paragraph 1). 
Where the insurance undertaking concerned fails to take the necessary action, the 
supervisory authorities of the Member State concerned shall inform the 
supervisory authorities of the home Member State accordingly. The supervisory 
authorities of the home Member State shall, at the earliest opportunity, take all 
appropriate measures to ensure that the insurance undertaking concerned 
remedies that irregular situation. The supervisory authorities of the home Member 
State shall inform the supervisory authorities of the host Member State of the 
measures taken. (paragraph 2). 
Where, despite the measures taken by the home Member State or because those 
measures prove to be inadequate or are lacking in that Member State, the 
insurance undertaking persists in violating the legal provisions in force in the host 
Member State, the supervisory authorities of the host Member State may, after 
informing the supervisory authorities of the home Member State, take appropriate 
measures to prevent or penalise further irregularities, including, in so far as is 
strictly necessary, preventing that undertaking from continuing to conclude new 
insurance contracts within the territory of the host Member State (paragraph 3). 
(Note: emphasis added by the Supreme Administrative Court) 
8 Pursuant to Article 155(5) of that directive, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not affect 
the power of the Member States to penalise infringements within their territories 
while Article 155(6) thereof states, Where an insurance undertaking which has 
committed an infringement has an establishment or possesses property in the 
Member State concerned, the supervisory authorities of that Member State may, in 
accordance with national law, apply the national administrative penalties 
NOVIS 
 
5 
prescribed for that infringement by way of enforcement against that establishment 
or property. 
9 Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive was transposed to the Czech legal order 
by Paragraph 110 of the IL, which regulates supervision in relation to the 
activities of insurance undertakings from other Member States, as follows: 
(1) Should the Czech National Bank find that an insurance undertaking from 
another Member State, which operates its insurance or reinsurance business on 
the territory of the Czech Republic on the basis of the right of establishment or on 
the basis of the freedom to provide services on a temporary basis, is not 
complying with any obligations that apply to such activities in the Czech Republic, 
it shall oblige that insurance undertaking to remedy the deficiencies within a 
period set by the Czech National Bank.  
(2) In ascertaining or verifying the facts referred to in subparagraph 1, the 
Czech National Bank may require, from such an insurance undertaking, 
documents, information, and the necessary explanation pertaining to its activities 
on the territory of the Czech Republic, and the insurance company is obliged to 
comply. 
(3) Should an insurance undertaking from another Member state fail to remedy 
the deficiencies referred to in subparagraph 1 within the time limit specified, the 
Czech National Bank shall inform the supervisory authority of the home Member 
State thereof. 
(4) If remedial measures imposed by the supervisory authority of the home 
Member State do not result in remedying the deficiencies found in the activities of 
an insurance undertaking from another Member State, or if no remedial measures 
have been imposed, the Czech National Bank shall impose on such an insurance 
undertaking a fine or a ban on entering into new insurance or reinsurance 
agreements on the territory of the Czech Republic, and on expanding obligations 
from any such agreements already concluded. The Czech National Bank shall 
inform the supervisory authority of the home Member State of that decision. At the 
same time, the Czech National Bank may also refer the case to the European 
Supervisory Authority with a request for cooperation. 
(5) In urgent cases, the Czech National Bank shall proceed in accordance with 
subparagraph 4, without applying the procedure set out in subparagraphs 1 to 3. 
III. Analysis of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling  
10 In view of the above, the Supreme Administrative Court must examine the legal 
question of whether Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive (and thus also the 
national transposing provision of Paragraph 110 of the IL) is also applicable to 
cases of supervision by the supervisory authority of the host State (the defendant) 
over whether an insurance undertaking from another Member State (the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 12. 2023 – CASE C-18/24 
 
6  
complainant) adheres to the obligations established by the PRIIPs Regulation or 
on the basis of the IDD. 
11 If the response to the question formulated above is affirmative, the Supreme 
Administrative Court must also consider whether Article 155 of the Solvency II 
Directive (and hence also the national transposing provision in Paragraph 110 IL) 
gives rise to a priority power for the supervisory authority of the home state and 
the obligation for the supervisory authority of the host State (the defendant) to 
first exhaust the notification and remedy procedure under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 
of Article 155 of the directive and subparagraphs 1, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 110 IL, 
even in the case of imposing administrative sanctions pursuant to paragraphs 5 
and 6 of Article 155 of the directive, or whether the supervisory authority of the 
host State is authorised to penalise and impose administrative sanctions 
automatically. 
12 According to Article 267(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, the Supreme Administrative Court is obliged to approach the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (‘the CJEU’ or ‘the Court of Justice’), where a 
question concerning the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, 
bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union is raised. The Supreme Administrative 
Court has concluded that the conditions for submitting questions for a preliminary 
ruling have been met in the present case. 
13 The Supreme Administrative Court is not aware of the question of the 
interpretation of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive, in the regard in which it 
is decisive for the present case, having been addressed by the case-law of the 
CJEU (it is not an acte éclairé). Furthermore, as the national court deciding at last 
instance, it must be particularly vigilant in its assessment of whether or not there 
is any reasonable doubt as to the correct interpretation of the provision of EU law 
at issue and have regard, inter alia, to the objective pursued by the preliminary 
ruling procedure which is to secure uniform interpretation of EU law (judgment of 
the Grand Chamber of the CJEU of 6 October 2021, in Consorzio 
ItalianManagement, C-561/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 49). The 
Supreme Administrative Court believes that neither of the potential interpretations 
outlined below may be considered as clear and as manifestly more convincing, 
without reasonable doubt, than another interpretation (it is thus not an acte clair), 
and hence it refers the questions specified in the operative part of this order for a 
preliminary ruling. 
III.1 First question: applicability of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive 
14 In addressing the first question, of whether Article 155 of the Solvency II 
Directive applies also to cases of supervision by a supervisory authority of a host 
State over whether an insurance undertaking from another Member State complies 
with the obligations laid down by the PRIIPs Regulation or on the basis of the 
IDD, the Supreme Administrative Court sees a first possible interpretation 
whereby the expression in Article 155(1) of the Solvency II Directive ‘the 
NOVIS 
 
7 
insurance undertaking (…) is not complying with the legal provisions applicable 
to it’ (French: ne respecte pas les dispositions légales (…) qui lui sont 
applicables) of the host State, is to be interpreted merely as meaning that it does 
not comply with the legal provisions implementing the substantive 
requirements arising from that directive. In that case, the procedure set out in 
Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive would thus not apply to supervision over 
compliance with the obligations laid down by the PRIIPs Regulation or on the 
basis of the IDD. 
15 That possible interpretation is supported by the regulation of supervision and the 
supervisory authorities in Chapter III of the Solvency II Directive. The main 
objective of supervision, according to that directive, is generally the protection of 
policy holders and beneficiaries (Article 27); nevertheless, a secondary objective 
is the stability of the financial systems concerned in the European Union 
(Article 28), to which the short name of the directive corresponds. Furthermore, 
supervision is to be based on a prospective and risk-based approach 
(Article 29(1)). According to recital 14, the protection of policy holders 
presupposes that insurance and reinsurance undertakings are subject to effective 
solvency requirements that result in an efficient allocation of capital across the 
European Union. According to recital 24, the supervisory authorities of the home 
Member State should be responsible for monitoring the financial health of 
insurance and reinsurance undertakings. 
16 Above all, however, Article 30 of the Solvency II Directive, which regulates the 
scope of the supervision introduced by the directive, refers to the financial 
supervision of insurance and reinsurance undertakings, including that of the 
business they pursue either through branches or under the freedom to provide 
services, shall be the sole responsibility of the home Member State (paragraph 1). 
Financial supervision pursuant to paragraph 1 shall include verification, with 
respect to the entire business of the insurance and reinsurance undertaking, of its 
state of solvency, of the establishment of technical provisions, of its assets and of 
the eligible own funds, in accordance with the rules laid down or practices 
followed in the home Member State under provisions adopted at Community level 
(…) (paragraph 2). According to Article 36(1) of the directive, which regulates the 
review process, Member States shall ensure that the supervisory authorities 
review and evaluate the strategies, processes and reporting procedures which are 
established by the insurance and reinsurance undertakings to comply with the 
laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted pursuant to this 
Directive. It is evident from the list in paragraph 2 of that article that this means 
supervision over the financial health of insurance undertakings, to which the short 
name of the Solvency II Directive, and the vast majority of its other provisions, 
corresponds. 
17 In this first possible interpretation, it therefore appears logical for Article 155 of 
the Solvency II Directive to be interpreted such that it follows on from the 
regulation of supervision in Chapter III of the directive (namely, financial 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 12. 2023 – CASE C-18/24 
 
8  
supervision) and that it should therefore be applied exclusively to breaches of 
legal provisions transposing the requirements of the Solvency II Directive. 
18 According to the Supreme Administrative Court, however, a second possible 
interpretation cannot be ruled out, which emphasises the system of the Solvency 
II Directive, where Article 155 is placed in Chapter VIII, entitled Right of 
establishment and freedom to provide services, the intent and purpose of which is 
to harmonise all supervision over the spheres of insurance provision. According to 
this interpretation, the expression in Article 155(1) of the Solvency II Directive 
‘an insurance undertaking (…) is not complying with the legal provisions’ would 
be interpreted such that it is not complying with any legal provisions 
implementing EU requirements as to the position and activities of insurance 
undertakings (meaning including other provisions than those arising under the 
Solvency II Directive). The procedure set out in that article should therefore apply 
to all supervisory activities by supervisory authorities over insurance 
undertakings. 
19 Recital 11 speaks in favour of that interpretation, as it states that the directive 
constitutes an essential instrument for the achievement of the internal market. 
Hence, according to that recital, it is therefore appropriate to bring about such 
harmonisation as is necessary and sufficient to achieve the mutual recognition of 
authorisations and supervisory systems, and thus a single authorisation which is 
valid throughout the Community and which allows the supervision of an 
undertaking to be carried out by the home Member State, without that supervision 
being in any way specified or restricted. Recital 18 also emphasises that The 
supervisory authorities of the Member States should therefore have at their 
disposal all means necessary to ensure the orderly pursuit of business by 
insurance and reinsurance undertakings throughout the Community whether 
pursued under the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services. 
20 According to this possible interpretation, Chapter III thus regulates only one 
segment of supervision, namely financial supervision, meaning supervision over 
the financial health of insurance undertakings. And since the objective of the 
directive constitutes an effort aimed at harmonising all segments of supervision, 
and all the activities of supervisory authorities in the sphere of insurance, and 
accordingly, to maximise attainment of the principle of supervision by the home 
Member State over insurance undertakings (in older terminology: the principle of 
control by the home Member State), Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive will 
also apply to supervision over other substantive requirements related to the 
position and activities of insurance undertakings. 
21 To conclude this part, the Supreme Administrative Court observes that it is aware 
of the CJEU judgment of 28 April 2009 in Commission v Italy, C-518/06, 
ECLI:EU:C:2009:270, in which the CJEU spoke in restrictive terms about the 
principle of control by the home Member State (that it is say, in favour rather of 
the first possible interpretation), considering that the principle extends only to the 
financial supervision of insurance undertakings (paragraph 115 of the judgment) 
NOVIS 
 
9 
and that the Community legislature did not intend that the home Member State 
should have exclusive supervisory competence extending to the commercial 
conduct of insurance undertakings (paragraph 116 of the judgment) and that 
controls by host-state authorities are not precluded (paragraph 117 of the 
judgment). The Supreme Administrative Court observes, however, that the 
judgment cited applies to legislation which, unlike in the present case, pertained to 
non-life insurance, and interpreted Council Directive 92/49/EEC […] on the 
coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct 
insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 
88/357/EEC (‘the Third non-life insurance Directive’). Neither the legislation nor 
the statement of purpose of the EU legislator in the preamble to the Solvency II 
Directive are identical to those of the Third non-life insurance Directive. For that 
reason, therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court does not consider the 
question referred to be an acte éclairé. The Solvency II Directive allows for both 
of the interpretations outlined above, between which the CJEU should choose. 
III.2 Second question: (un)conditional power of the supervisory authority of 
the host State to impose administrative penalties 
22 Should the CJEU take the view that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive 
applies to all supervisory activities by supervisory authorities (see paragraphs [19] 
to [21], above), and hence also to supervision of compliance with the obligations 
laid down by the PRIIPs Regulation or on the basis of the IDD, it is further 
necessary to examine the procedure described in Article 155 of the directive itself, 
and to distinguish when the supervisory authority of the host State is obliged to 
proceed in line with that article and when not. In particular, it is necessary to 
answer the question whether Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive gives rise to 
a priority power for the supervisory authority of the home state and the related 
obligation of the supervisory authority of the host State to exhaust the notification 
and remedy procedure, pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of that article of 
the directive, even in cases when administrative sanctions are being imposed 
pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (6) thereof. This issue is not clear, given the 
problematic wording of the text of the directive in several language versions.  
23 According to the first possible interpretation, the supervisory authority of the 
host State must exhaust the notification and remedy procedure pursuant to 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Article 155, not only before the adoption of 
appropriate measures to prevent further infringements (that is, prospective 
measures, such as prohibiting new insurance agreements to be entered into on its 
territory), but also before adopting a measure to penalise infringements of the law 
(namely, retrospective administrative penalties). This possible interpretation 
accents the interpretation of the expression ‘or penalise’ in Article 155(3) of the 
Solvency II Directive (French: ou réprimer), from which it can be inferred, at 
least in certain language versions, that the imposition of penalties on an insurance 
undertaking by the supervisory authority of the host State is also subject to the 
exhaustion of the notification and remedy process. In this possible interpretation, 
paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 155 of the Directive only confirm the subsequent 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 12. 2023 – CASE C-18/24 
 
10  
power of the supervisory authority of the host State to impose penalties if the 
supervisory authority of the home state has failed to take appropriate measures or 
where the insurance undertaking has failed to remedy the situation on the basis 
thereof. 
24 In terms of the second possible interpretation, emphasis is placed on the 
wording of Article 155(5) and (6) of the Solvency II Directive, which could also 
be interpreted as automatically (without any conditions) confirming the discovery 
and enforcement powers of the supervisory authorities of individual host Member 
States. Accordingly, that is effected without the need to first exhaust the procedure 
under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive. The 
language does not prevent that interpretation because paragraph (5) states that 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) do not prejudice the power of the Member States to 
penalise infringements within their territories (French: sanctionner les infractions 
sur leur territoire), while pursuant to paragraph (6), supervisory authorities of the 
host State may apply the national administrative penalties prescribed for that 
infringement by way of enforcement (French: mettre à exécution les sanctions 
administratives nationales prévues pour cette infraction). 
25 In this second possible interpretation, the notification and remedy process under 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Article 155 of the directive constitutes a condition 
only for the taking of appropriate measures to prevent further infringements (that 
is, prospective measures, such as prohibiting the conclusion of new insurance 
agreements on its territory) but does not constitute a condition for the ability of the 
supervisory authorities of the host State to directly, independently, and efficiently 
penalise administrative offences committed on its territory. 
26 This interpretation is supported, for example, by the French version of the 
directive, which in Article 155(3) uses the terms prévenir ou réprimer de 
nouvelles irrégularités, that is, to prevent or supress new irregularities (errors). 
The French text of the directive in paragraph 3 therefore focuses only on 
prospective measures and not on retrospective penalties. 
27 This interpretation is also supported by the position (albeit stated without detailed 
grounds) taken in the CJEU judgment cited above in Commission v Italy, 
C-518/06 (paragraph 120), which, with respect to Article 40(7) of the Third non-
life insurance Directive, confirmed the power of the host Member State to 
penalise infringements committed on its territory, without the CJEU considering 
the obligation to first exhaust the notification and remedy procedure pursuant to 
the text of Article 40(3), (4), and (5) of the Third non-life insurance Directive as 
then applicable. 
28 Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court observes that it is also aware of the 
CJEU judgment of 27 April 2017 in Onix Asigurări SA, C-559/15, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:316. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, that 
judgment does not, however, provide any answers to the questions referred, since 
it pertains to Article 40(6) of the Third non-life insurance Directive (similar to the 
NOVIS 
 
11 
current Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive), namely the possibility to take 
necessary measures in emergency (urgent) cases that are of a prospective nature 
and constitute temporary protective measures (paragraph 52 of the judgment). It 
therefore does not pertain to the powers of authorities to impose administrative 
sanctions, which constitute the subject matter of the case under consideration. 
IV. Conclusion 
29 For the reasons referred to above, the Supreme Administrative Court has referred 
the questions set out in operative part I of this order for a preliminary ruling. 
[…] 
[…] [national proceedings, date, signatures]