Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62021CN0772

    Case C-772/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 December 2021 — ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas

    OJ C 95, 28.2.2022, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 95, 28.2.2022, p. 6–6 (GA)

    28.2.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 95/19

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 December 2021 — ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas

    (Case C-772/21)

    (2022/C 95/24)

    Language of the case: Lithuanian

    Referring court

    Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant:‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB

    Other party to the appeal proceedings: Lietuvos bankas

    Questions referred

    1.

    Should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the minimum standards referred to in that rule must be complied with by a cash handler who carries out automated fitness checking of euro banknotes?

    2.

    If, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, the minimum standards referred to therein are applicable only to manufacturers of banknote handling machines (but not to cash handlers), should Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, read in conjunction with Article 3(5) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law according to which the obligation to comply with those minimum standards does apply to a cash handler?

    3.

    Do the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes by banknote handling machines, regard being had to the fact that they are published on the ECB’s website, comply with the principle of legal certainty and with Article 297(2) TFEU, and are they binding on, and capable of being relied upon as regards, cash handlers?

    4.

    Is Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, in so far as it provides that the minimum standards for automated fitness checking of euro banknotes are published on the ECB’s website and amended from time to time, contrary to the principle of legal certainty and to Article 297(2) TFEU, and therefore invalid?

    (1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes (ECB/2010/14) (2010/597/EU) (OJ 2010 L 267, p. 1).

    Top