CELEX: 62013CN0314
Language: en
Date: 2013-06-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-314/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Užsienio reikalų ministerija v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE

10.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 233/3
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Užsienio reikalų ministerija v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE
   (Case C-314/13)
   2013/C 233/05
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Užsienio reikalų ministerija (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
   
      Respondents: Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE
   
      Other party to the proceedingss: Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimų tarnyba prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos (Financial Crime Investigation Service attached to the Ministry of the Interior)
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (1) of 18 May 2006 be interpreted as meaning that the authority which is responsible for application of the exemption set out in Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation enjoys an absolute discretion when taking a decision on whether to grant that exemption?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, by which criteria should that authority be guided, and by which criteria is it bound, when taking a decision on whether to grant the exemption set out in Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Must Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 be interpreted as meaning that the authority which is responsible for granting the aforementioned exemption is entitled or obliged, when carrying out the assessment as to whether to grant the exemption sought, to have regard for, inter alia, the fact that the applicants submitting the request are seeking to give effect to their fundamental rights (in this case, the right to a judicial remedy), although it must also ensure that if, in the specific case, the exemption is granted, the objective of the sanction provided for will not be negated and that the exemption will not be misused (for example, if the amount of money earmarked for securing a legal remedy would be manifestly disproportionate in relation to the scale of the legal services provided)?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Must Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 be interpreted as meaning that one of the bases capable of providing justification for not granting the exemption set out in that provision may be the illegal nature of the acquisition of the funds in respect of the use of which that exemption is to be implemented?
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1).