Case C-27/22, Volkswagen Group Italia and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle ne bis in idem — Penalty imposed concerning unfair commercial practices — Criminal nature of the penalty — Criminal penalty imposed in a Member State after the adoption of a penalty concerning unfair commercial practices in another Member State but which became final before the latter penalty — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the principle ne bis in idem — Conditions — Coordination of proceedings and penalties)
Date: 2023-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, legal person, penalty, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_202300486EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/486


6.11.2023





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
(Case C-27/22, (1) Volkswagen Group Italia and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle ne bis in idem - Penalty imposed concerning unfair commercial practices - Criminal nature of the penalty - Criminal penalty imposed in a Member State after the adoption of a penalty concerning unfair commercial practices in another Member State but which became final before the latter penalty - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the principle ne bis in idem - Conditions - Coordination of proceedings and penalties)
(C/2023/486)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Volkswagen Group Italia SpA, Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Other parties: Associazione Cittadinanza Attiva Onlus, Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that an administrative fine provided for under national legislation, which is imposed on a company by the competent national consumer protection authority for unfair commercial practices, although classified as an administrative penalty under national legislation, constitutes a criminal penalty, for the purposes of that provision, where it has a punitive purpose and has a high degree of severity.










2.


The principle ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows a fine of a criminal nature imposed on a legal person for unfair commercial practices to be maintained where that person has been the subject of a criminal conviction in respect of the same facts in another Member State, even if that conviction is subsequent to the date of the decision imposing that fine but became final before the judgment in the judicial proceedings brought against that decision acquired the force of res judicata.










3.


Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as authorising the limitation of the application of the principle ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 50 of that charter, so as to permit a duplication of proceedings or penalties in respect of the same facts, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of the abovementioned charter, as defined by the case-law, are satisfied, namely (i) that such duplication does not represent an excessive burden for the person concerned, (ii) that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication, and (iii) that the sets of proceedings in question have been conducted in a manner that is sufficiently coordinated and within a proximate timeframe.






(1)  
            OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/486/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)