Case C-72/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority
Date: 2015-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, financial aid, financial institution, gas industry, interpretation of the law, oil industry, payment, principle of legal certainty, securities








C_2015155EN.01001201.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom) made on 18 February 2015 — OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority
(Case C-72/15)
(2015/C 155/13)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

Defendants: Her Majesty's Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority

Questions referred

The questions referred concern Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP (2) and Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP (3) (collectively, ‘the Decision’) and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (4), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 (5) and Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 (6) (collectively, ‘the EU Regulation’). They are the following:






1)


Having regard in particular to Article 19(1) TEU, Article 24 TEU, Article 40 TEU, Article 47 EUCFR and Article 275, second paragraph, TFEU does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the validity of Article 1(2)(b)-(d), Article 1(3), Article 4, Article 4(a), Article 7 and Annexe III of the Decision?










2)








(a)


Are one or more of the following provisions (‘the Relevant Measures’) of the EU Regulation and, to the extent that the Court has jurisdiction, the Decision invalid:






i)


Article 4 and Article 4a of the Decision;










ii)


Articles 3, 3a, 4(3)-4(4) and Annex II of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Oil Sector Provisions’);










iii)


Articles 1(2)(b)-(d) and 1(3) and Annex III of the Decision;










iv)


Articles 5(2)(b)-(d), 5(3) and Annex VI of the EU Regulation; (together, ‘the Securities and Lending Provisions’);










v)


Article 7 of the Decision; and










vi)


Article 11 of the EU Regulation.


















2)








(b)


In so far as the Relevant Measures are valid, is it contrary to the principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa for a Member State to impose criminal penalties, pursuant to Article 8 of the EU Regulation, before the scope of the relevant offence has been sufficiently clarified by the Court of Justice?














3)


In so far as the relevant prohibitions or restrictions referred to in Question 2(a) are valid:






a)


Does the term ‘'financial assistance’ in Article 4(3) of the EU Regulation include the processing of a payment by a bank or other financial institution?










b)


Does Article 5 of the EU Regulation prohibit the issuing of, or other dealings with, Global Depositary Receipts (‘GDRs’) issued on or after 12 September 2014 under a deposit agreement with one of the entities listed in Annex VI, in respect of shares in one of those entities which were issued before 12 September 2014?










c)


If the Court considers that there is a lack of clarity which can appropriately be resolved by the Court providing further guidance, what is the correct interpretation of the terms ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ in Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 and 3a of the EU Regulation? In particular, if the CJEU considers it necessary and appropriate, can it provide a geological interpretation of the term ‘shale’ to be used in implementing the Regulation, and clarify whether the measurement of ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ is to be taken from the point of drilling or elsewhere?










(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 229, p. 13.

(2)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 271, p. 54.

(3)  Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP OJ L 349, p. 58.

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 229, p. 1.

(5)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine OJ L 271, p. 3.

(6)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 OJ L 349, p. 20.