Case C-820/21, Vinal: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Vinal’ AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duty — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 16 — Tax warehouse arrangements — Conditions for the grant of an authorisation for the opening and operation of a tax warehouse by an authorised warehousekeeper — Failure to satisfy those conditions — Final withdrawal of the authorisation, together with the imposition of a financial penalty — Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Ne bis in idem principle — Proportionality)
Date: 2023-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, anti-discriminatory measure, equal treatment, excise duty, principle of proportionality, storage, tax evasion, tax law, trade licence








C_202300484EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/484


6.11.2023





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Vinal’ AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
            
(Case C-820/21, (1) Vinal)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 16 - Tax warehouse arrangements - Conditions for the grant of an authorisation for the opening and operation of a tax warehouse by an authorised warehousekeeper - Failure to satisfy those conditions - Final withdrawal of the authorisation, together with the imposition of a financial penalty - Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Ne bis in idem principle - Proportionality)
(C/2023/484)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:
            ‘Vinal’ AD

Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
         

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, read in conjunction with the principle of proportionality,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides for the withdrawal of an authorisation to operate a tax warehouse in the event of a failure to comply with the excise duty arrangements that is considered to be serious by the national legislation, together with a financial penalty already imposed in respect of the same facts, provided that that withdrawal, having regard to its definitive nature in particular, does not constitute a measure that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
In the event that those two penalties are criminal in nature, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation provided that:






—


the possibility of combining those two penalties is provided for by law;










—


the national legislation does not allow for proceedings and penalties in respect of the same facts on the basis of the same offence or in pursuit of the same objective, but provides solely for the possibility of a duplication of proceedings and penalties under different legislative provisions;










—


those proceedings and penalties pursue complementary aims relating, as the case may be, to different aspects of the same unlawful conduct at issue; and










—


there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts and omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the different authorities, that those two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a manner that is sufficiently coordinated and within a proximate time frame, and that any penalty that may have been imposed in the proceedings that were first in time was taken into account in the assessment of the second penalty, meaning that the resulting burden, for the persons concerned, of such duplication is limited to what is strictly necessary and the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.






(1)  
            OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/484/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)