62023CO0558_INF
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 April 2024 –[Dramanova] (
i
)
(Case C‑558/23) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Intellectual property – Act adversely affecting intellectual property rights – Criminal and administrative penalties – Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties)
Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights – Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law – Use without consent in the course of trade of a mark – National legislation categorising the same conduct as an administrative and as a criminal offence – Offence described in identical terms in the criminal law and the law on trade marks – No delimitation criteria – Whether permissible
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 49(1))
(see paragraphs 38-40, operative part 2)
Operative part
1.
The first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Rayonen sad Lukovit (District Court, Lukovit, Bulgaria), by decision of 6 September 2023, are manifestly inadmissible.
2.
Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
must be interpreting as meaning that the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties does not preclude national legislation which provides, where a trade mark is used in the course of trade without the consent of the holder of the exclusive right to that mark, that the same conduct may be categorised both as an administrative and as a criminal offence, without that legislation including criteria allowing a distinction to be drawn between, on the one hand, the administrative offence, and, on the other, the criminal offence, the constituent elements of the offence being described in identical terms in the criminal law and the law on trade marks.
(
i
)	The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(
1
)	OJ C 644, 13.11.2023.