C 173/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
15.5.2023
Operative part Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, with the objective of protecting minors against audiovisual content capable of harming their well-being and their development, requires that audiovisual programmes recorded on a physical medium and marketed via an online store have previously been the subject of an inspection procedure and classification, according to age limits, and corresponding labelling in accordance with the law of that Member State, including where those programmes have already been the subject of a comparable procedure and of comparable classification and labelling in application of the law of another Member State, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it; In that regard, the fact that some of the recordings that may be marketed in the Member State in question from another Member State are excluded from the scope of that legislation is not of decisive importance, provided that such a limitation does not compromise the attainment of the objective pursued.
Nor is it decisive that the national legislation concerned does not provide for a derogation from that requirement where it may be established that the purchaser of a recording covered by that legislation is of full age.
(1)
OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.
Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Innsbruck) — Austria) — Willy Hermann Service GmbH, DI v Präsidentin des Landesgerichts Feldkirch (Case C-561/22, (1) Willy Hermann Service) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2013/34/EU — Articles 30 and 51 — Publication of financial statements — Penalties for failure to publish — Imposition of periodic penalty payments by a civil court — Administrative procedure for the recovery of those periodic penalty payments, which have become final — Legislation precluding the review of those periodic penalty payments by an administrative court — Res judicata — Principle of effectiveness — Proportionality) (2023/C 173/10) Language of the case: German Referring court Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Innsbruck)
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Willy Hermann Service GmbH, DI Defendant: Präsidentin des Landesgerichts Feldkirch
Operative part of the order EU law must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that an administrative court, which rules on the recovery of periodic penalty payments imposed on a company and its manager for failure to publish annual accounts, is bound by the decision of the civil court, which has become final, imposing those periodic penalty payments and setting their amount with a view to ensuring compliance with obligations under Articles 30 and 51 of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC, as transposed into national law.
(1)
Date lodged: 24.8.2022.