CELEX: 62019CN0603
Language: en
Date: 2019-08-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-603/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Úrad špeciálnej prokuratúry Generálnej prokuratúry Slovenskej republiky v TG and UF

14.10.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 348/11
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Špecializovaný trestný súd (Slovakia) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Úrad špeciálnej prokuratúry Generálnej prokuratúry Slovenskej republiky v TG and UF
      (Case C-603/19)
      (2019/C 348/12)
      Language of the case: Slovak
      
         Referring court
      
      Špecializovaný trestný súd
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Úrad špeciálnej prokuratúry Generálnej prokuratúry Slovenskej republiky
      
         Defendants: TG and UF
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is Directive 2012/29/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (principally the right to participate actively in criminal proceedings and the right to secure compensation for damage in criminal proceedings) applicable, as regards rights which, by their nature, are not enjoyed solely by a natural person, as a sentient being, also to legal persons and the State, or State authorities, where the provisions of national law confer on them the status of injured party in criminal proceedings?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Are legislation and decision-making practice, (2) such that the State may not claim compensation in criminal proceedings for the damage caused to it by fraudulent conduct on the part of an accused person resulting in the misappropriation of funds from the budget of the European Union, or may not appeal, under Article 256(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order by which the court decides not to admit it, or not to admit the authority representing it, to the main proceedings to seek compensation for the damage as an injured party, and it does not have any other type of procedure available to it by which it may assert its right as against the accused, which means that it is also not possible to guarantee its right to compensation for damage against the property and property rights of the accused under Article 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus rendering that right de facto unenforceable, compatible with Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (3) of 21 June 1999, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 (4) of 11 July 1994?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Is the concept of ‘the same undertaking’ referred to in Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 (5) of 7 May 1998, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 (6) of 12 January 2001, to be interpreted only formally as meaning that it is necessary and sufficient to establish whether the companies concerned have separate legal personality under national law, such that it is possible to grant to each of those companies State aid of up to EUR 100 000, or is the decisive criterion the actual mode of operation and management of those companies, held by the same persons and inter-related, in the manner of a system of branches managed by a central company, even though each has its own legal personality under national law, so that they must be deemed to form ‘the same undertaking’ and, as a single entity, may receive State aid of up to EUR 100 000 only once?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  For the purposes of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (7) of 26 July 1995, does the term ‘damage’ mean only that part of the funds wrongly obtained which is directly related to the fraudulent conduct, or also the costs actually incurred and duly proven and the use of the assistance, if the evidence shows that their expenditure was necessary to conceal the fraudulent conduct, delay the detection of the fraudulent conduct and obtain the full amount of the State aid granted?
               
            
         (1)  Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57).
      
         (2)  Opinion of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic of 29 November 2017.
      
         (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).
      
         (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (OJ 1994 L 178, p. 43).
      
         (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid (OJ 1998 L 142, p. 1).
      
         (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 30).
      
         (7)  Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 C 316, p. 49).