1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5i(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/595 of 11 April 2022 (OJ 2022 L 114, p. 60) (‘Regulation No 833/2014’).
2 The request has been made in criminal proceedings brought against ZZ for attempted unlawful export of banknotes to Russia.
3 Recital 2 of Regulation No 833/2014 states: ‘On 22 July 2014, the Council [of the European Union] concluded that should Russia fail to respond to the demands formulated in the European Council conclusions of 27 June 2014 and in its own conclusions of 22 July, it would be ready to introduce without delay a package of further significant restrictive measures. It is therefore considered appropriate to apply additional restrictive measures with a view to increasing the costs of Russia’s actions to undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and to promoting a peaceful settlement of the crisis. These measures will be kept under review and may be suspended or withdrawn, or be supplemented by other restrictive measures, in light of developments on the ground.’
4 Article 5i of that regulation provides: ‘1. It shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export banknotes denominated in any official currency of a Member State to Russia or to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Russia, including the government and the Central Bank of Russia, or for use in Russia. 2. The prohibition in paragraph 1 shall not apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export of banknotes denominated in any official currency of a Member State provided that such sale, supply, transfer or export is necessary for: (a) the personal use of natural persons travelling to Russia or members of their immediate families travelling with them; or (b) the official purposes of diplomatic missions, consular posts or international organisations in Russia enjoying immunities in accordance with international law.’
5 Recital 5 of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/346 of 1 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 63, p. 5) is worded as follows: ‘In view of the gravity of the situation, and in response to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, it is appropriate to introduce further restrictive measures … It is also appropriate to prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, the supply of euro denominated banknotes to Russia.’
6 Recitals 2, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/345 of 1 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 63, p. 1) state: ‘(2) Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 gives effect to certain measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP [of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13)]. (3) On 1 March 2022 the Council adopted Decision [2022/346], amending Decision [2014/512] and imposing further restrictive measures … It also prohibits, subject to certain exceptions, the supply of euro banknotes to Russia. … (6) Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly.’
7 Recital 6 of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/578 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 111, p. 70) states: ‘In view of the gravity of the situation, and in response to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, it is appropriate to introduce further restrictive measures. In particular, it is appropriate to … extend the prohibitions on the export of euro-denominated banknotes and on the sale of euro-denominated transferrable securities to all official currencies of the Member States. …’
8 Under point 1(a) of Paragraph 18(1) of the Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (Law on foreign trade) of 6 June 2013 (BGBl. 2013 I, p. 1482), in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings (‘the AWG’), anyone who infringes a prohibition on export, import, transit, transfer, sale, purchase, supply, provision, transmission or investment laid down in a directly applicable legal act of the European Communities or of the European Union published in the Official Journal of the European Communities or the Official Journal of the European Union which serves to implement an economic sanction adopted by the Council in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, is to be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.
9 Under Paragraph 18(6) of the AWG, an attempt to commit one of those offences is punishable by criminal penalties.
10 On 31 May 2022, ZZ travelled to Frankfurt Main airport (Germany) with the intention of taking a flight to Istanbul (Türkiye) and then, from there, a flight to Moscow (Russia), to stay in Russia from 31 May to 21 June 2022.
11 During the customs inspection carried out at Frankfurt Main airport, it was found that ZZ was in possession of EUR 14855 and 99150 Russian roubles (RUB) in banknotes, which she had not previously declared to customs, intended to cover her travel expenses and to finance medical treatments to be provided in Russia, namely dental treatment, hormone therapy in a fertility clinic and follow-up treatment for breast surgery in a plastic surgery clinic.
12 The euro-denominated banknotes were seized in the amount of EUR 13800, the remaining banknotes having been left to her for personal use to cover her travel expenses. ZZ finally abandoned her trip.
13 The Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Local Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) found ZZ guilty of attempted unlawful export of banknotes under point 1(a) of Paragraph 18(1) and Paragraph 6 of the AWG, read in conjunction with Article 5i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014. In the context of its legal assessment, that court - relying on recital 2 of that regulation and on the guidance on the interpretation of the concept of ‘personal use’, within the meaning of Article 5i(2)(a) of that regulation, appearing on the European Commission’s website - considered that the euro-denominated banknotes carried by the accused in the main proceedings when leaving Germany did not fall within the exception laid down in that provision.
14 ZZ brought an appeal on a point of law before the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), which is the referring court, against the judgment at first instance.
15 The referring court states that the interpretation of Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and that the Court has not yet ruled on that point. It adds that the interpretation of that provision is not obvious enough to rule out all reasonable doubt.
16 In those circumstances, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Is the export of banknotes denominated in any official currency of a Member State necessary for the personal use of a natural person travelling to Russia, within the meaning of Article 5i(2)(a) of [Regulation No 833/2014], where such banknotes are intended to be used for that person’s medical treatment (in this case dental treatment, hormone therapy in a fertility clinic and follow-up treatment due to breast surgery in a plastic surgery clinic) in Russia?’
17 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the export by a person travelling to Russia of euro-denominated banknotes for the purposes of financing medical treatments which that person wishes to receive in that third country constitutes an export necessary for the personal use of that person, within the meaning of that provision.
18 According to settled case-law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of EU law it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 9 September 2021, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, C‑783/19, EU:C:2021:713, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).
19 In the first place, under Article 5i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014, it is to be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export banknotes denominated in any official currency of a Member State to Russia or to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Russia, including the government and the Central Bank of Russia, or for use in Russia.
20 However, according to Article 5i(2)(a) of that regulation, that prohibition is not to apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export of banknotes denominated in any official currency of a Member State provided that such sale, supply, transfer or export is necessary for the personal use of natural persons travelling to Russia or members of their immediate families travelling with them.
21 It is thus apparent from the wording of Article 5i(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 that the prohibition laid down in that provision applies to the sale, supply, transfer or export of banknotes denominated, inter alia, in euro, to ‘any’ natural or legal person, entity or body ‘in Russia’ or ‘for use in Russia’.
22 That wording suggests that, by laying down that prohibition, the EU legislature seeks to prevent, generally, the provision, either free of charge or in exchange for goods or services, of cash denominated in euro or in another currency of a Member State for the benefit of any natural or legal person residing or established in Russia.
23 In addition, as regards the exception to that prohibition, referred to in Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, first of all, the meaning and scope of the terms ‘personal use’ in that provision, which are not defined in that provision or in any other provision of that regulation, including Article 1 thereof, must be determined in accordance with the usual meaning of those terms in everyday language (see, by analogy, judgment of 5 February 2020, judgment of 5 February 2020, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Signing-on of seamen in the port of Rotterdam), C‑341/18, EU:C:2020:76, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited). Those terms designate, in their everyday meaning, use for the personal needs of the person concerned, as opposed, inter alia, to use for professional, commercial or investment purposes.
24 Next, the word ‘necessary’, which also appears in that provision, implies, in accordance with its usual meaning, that, in order to escape the prohibition laid down in Article 5i(1) of that regulation, the sale, supply, transfer or export of euro-denominated banknotes must be essential to meet such needs.
25 Lastly, the sale, supply, transfer or export of euro-denominated banknotes covered by the exception to that prohibition are, under Article 5i(2) of Regulation No 833/2014, those necessary for the personal use of ‘natural persons travelling to Russia or members of their immediate families travelling with them’. Those words suggest that the cash denominated in euro whose sale, supply, transfer or export is authorised under that provision must be intended to meet those persons’ own needs during their travel and stay in Russia.
26 Accordingly, it follows from a literal interpretation of Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014 that the sale, supply, transfer or export, by a person travelling to Russia, of the cash denominated in euros which he or she needs to obtain goods or services meeting the needs occasioned by that person’s travel and stay in Russia and, as the case may be, those of members of his or her immediate family travelling with that person, are excluded from the prohibition laid down in Article 5i(1) of that regulation.
27 In the second place, as regards the context of Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, it should be noted that that provision constitutes a derogation from the prohibition laid down in Article 5i(1) of that regulation. According to settled case-law, exceptions are to be interpreted strictly so that general rules are not negated (judgment of 28 October 2022, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (Extradition and ne bis in idem), C‑435/22 PPU, EU:C:2022:852, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited).
28 An interpretation of Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, such as that advocated by the accused in the main proceedings, according to which it is sufficient that the sale, supply, transfer or export of banknotes denominated in the currency of a Member State does not pursue a commercial, professional or investment purpose in order for them to be covered by that exception, would negate the prohibition laid down in Article 5i(1) of that regulation. It would be possible, if that were the case, to transfer to Russia, without restriction, sums of money denominated in such a currency in order to make personal purchases of any kind there and, moreover, it would be difficult to verify that such purchases are actually carried out.
29 Consequently, a strict interpretation of that exception which does not negate the general rule laid down in Article 5i(1) of that regulation can be ensured only if that provision is interpreted as meaning that the exception referred to therein covers only the sale, supply, transfer and export of banknotes denominated in the currency of a Member State intended to be used to finance the costs occasioned by the travel and stay of persons travelling to Russia and of members of their immediate families travelling with them.
30 In the third place, as regards the objective pursued by Regulation No 833/2014, it is apparent, first, from recital 2 of that regulation that the purpose of that regulation is to apply additional restrictive measures ‘with a view to increasing the costs of Russia’s actions to undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and to promoting a peaceful settlement of the crisis’. In addition, according to recital 6 of Decision 2022/578, the Council considered it appropriate, ‘in view of the gravity of the situation, and in response to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine’, to introduce further restrictive measures, in particular by extending the export ban on euro-denominated banknotes to all official currencies of the Member States.
31 That prohibition is ultimately intended to prevent the Russian economic system from benefiting from access to cash denominated in any currency of a Member State in order to increase even further the cost of Russia’s actions with regard to Ukraine.
32 As regards, moreover, the objective pursued by the exception provided for in Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, in view of the fact that the European Union has not adopted restrictive measures concerning the movement of persons to Russia for the purposes, inter alia, of tourism, and that it is essential for persons travelling and staying in that third country to obtain, to that end, certain goods and services, the introduction by the EU legislature of that exception, which specifically concerns persons travelling to Russia and members of their immediate families travelling with them, must be understood as seeking only to guarantee the effectiveness of the right to such movement.
33 In that context, first, a strict interpretation of the exception referred to in Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, to the effect that only the sale, supply, transfer and export of euro-denominated banknotes intended to finance the travel and subsistence expenses of persons travelling to Russia and of members of their immediate families travelling with them fall within the exception laid down in that provision, is consistent with the objectives of that regulation recalled in paragraphs 30 and 31 above.
34 In addition, that strict interpretation of Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, since it guarantees that persons travelling to Russia may dispose of the cash necessary to obtain essential goods and services in order to meet their needs during their travel and stay in Russia and, as the case may be, those of members of their immediate families travelling with them, also enables the objective pursued by that exception, namely to ensure the effectiveness of the right to travel to Russia, to be achieved.
35 It follows that the export by a person travelling to Russia of euro-denominated banknotes for the purposes of financing medical treatments, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within the exception provided for in Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014, since such treatments do not meet needs occasioned by that person’s travel or stay in Russia.
36 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 5i(2)(a) of Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that the export by a person travelling to Russia of euro-denominated banknotes for the purposes of financing medical treatments which that person wishes to receive in that third country does not constitute an export necessary for the personal use of that person, within the meaning of that provision.
37 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.