Case C-72/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) — United Kingdom) — PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, formerly OJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, The Financial Conduct Authority (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Provisions of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 — Validity — Jurisdiction of the Court — EU Russia Partnership Agreement — Obligation to state reasons — Principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa — Access to capital markets — Financial assistance — Global Depositary Receipts — Oil sector — Request for interpretation of concepts of ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-03-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, financial aid, international sanctions, oil industry, principle of legal certainty, securities, territorial dispute








C_2017161EN.01000201.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) — United Kingdom) — PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, formerly 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) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Provisions of Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 - Validity - Jurisdiction of the Court - EU Russia Partnership Agreement - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa - Access to capital markets - Financial assistance - Global Depositary Receipts - Oil sector - Request for interpretation of concepts of ‘shale’ and ‘waters deeper than 150 metres’ - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 161/02)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PJSC Rosneft Oil Company, formerly OJSC Rosneft Oil Company

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

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 19, 24 and 40 TEU, Article 275 TFEU, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings, under Article 267 TFEU, on the validity of an act adopted on the basis of provisions relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), such as Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014, provided that the request for a preliminary ruling relates either to the monitoring of that decision’s compliance with Article 40 TEU, or to reviewing the legality of restrictive measures against natural or legal persons;










2.


Examination of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(2)(b) to (d) and (3), and Article 7 of, and Annex III to, Decision 2014/512, as amended by Decision 2014/872, or of Articles 3 and 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Article 5(2)(b) to (d) and (3), and Article 11 of, and Annexes II and VI to, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014;
The principles of legal certainty and nulla poena sine lege certa must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from imposing criminal penalties that are to be applied in the event of an infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, in accordance with Article 8(1) of that regulation, before the scope of those provisions and, therefore, the scope of the associated criminal penalties, has been clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union.










3.


The expression ‘financial assistance’ in Article 4(3)(b) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not include the processing of a payment, as such, by a bank or other financial institution;
Article 5(2) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the issuance, after 12 September 2014, of international certificates representative of share ownership (Global Depositary Receipts), pursuant to a depositary agreement concluded with one of the entities listed in Annex VI to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended by Regulation No 1290/2014, including cases where those certificates represent shares issued by one of those entities before that date.






(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.