Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62011CN0027

Case C-27/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Anton Vinkov v Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

SL C 145, 14.5.2011, p. 3–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Anton Vinkov v Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

(Case C-27/11)

2011/C 145/03

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia — grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton Vinkov

Defendant: Nachalnik Administrativno-nakazatelna deynost

Questions referred

1.

Must applicable provisions of national law, such as those in the main proceedings, which relate to the legal consequences of a decision issued by an administrative authority concerning the imposition of a financial penalty due to an administrative offence consisting in a traffic accident, be interpreted to the effect that they are compatible with the provisions provided for in the Treaties and the European Union law measures adopted on the basis of those provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice and/or if appropriate in the area of transport?

2.

Does it follow from the provisions of the Treaties and European Union law measures adopted on the basis of those provisions in the area of freedom, security and justice in connection with judicial cooperation in criminal matters under Article 82(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the area of transport under Article 91(1)(c) of that Treaty that administrative road traffic offences which can be characterised as ‘minor’ for the purposes of and in connection with Article 2 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are included in the scope of European Union law?

3.

If the second question is answered in the affirmative, the answers to the following questions are requested:

3.1.

Does an administrative road traffic offence in the circumstances of the main proceedings constitute a minor offence for the purposes of European Union law if at the same time the following circumstances exist:

(a)

The offence is a traffic accident which has caused financial loss, must be characterised as having been committed intentionally or negligently, and is punishable as an administrative offence.

(b)

In accordance with the amount of the financial penalty provided for, the decision about its imposition cannot be challenged in court and the person concerned does not have the opportunity to prove that the offence with which he has been charged was not committed intentionally or negligently.

(c)

The number of points stated in the decision is deducted as an automatic legal consequence of the decision becoming final.

(d)

In the context of the system of driving licences which has been introduced, in which when they are issued a certain number of points is allocated to take into account offences committed, the deduction of points is also taken into account as an automatic legal consequence on the basis of penalty orders which cannot be challenged.

(e)

If the withdrawal of the driving licence due to disqualification from driving, which occurs as an automatic legal consequence of the deduction of the number of points granted on issue of the licence, is challenged in court, there is no incidental judicial review of the legality of the penalty orders, by which points have been deducted and which are not subject to challenge.

3.2.

Do Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if appropriate Article 91(1)(c) of that Treaty, and the measures adopted on the basis of the provisions mentioned and the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, allow the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions or the measures to improve road safety to not be applied to a decision on the imposition of a financial penalty arising from a road traffic offence which is capable of being characterised as ‘minor’ in European Union law in the circumstances in the main proceedings because the Member State has provided that the requirements of being able to challenge a decision before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters and the applicability of the procedural rules of national law on appeals in the event of being charged for committing a criminal offence are to be disregarded.

4.

If the second question is answered in the negative, the answers to the following questions are requested:

Do Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if appropriate Article 91(1)(c) of that Treaty, and the measures adopted on the basis of the provisions mentioned and the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, allow the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions or the European Union law measures to improve road safety to not be applied to a decision on the imposition of a financial penalty arising from a road traffic offence according to the discretion of the Member State — the Member State having provided in a legislative act that the requirements of being able to challenge a decision before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters and the applicability of the procedural rules of national law on appeals in the event of being charged for committing a criminal offence are be disregarded — where at the same time the following applies to the decision in the circumstances of the main proceedings:

(a)

The offence is a traffic accident which has caused financial loss, must be characterised as having been committed intentionally or negligently, and is punishable as an administrative offence.

(b)

In accordance with the amount of the financial penalty provided for, the decision about its imposition cannot be challenged in court and the person concerned does not have the opportunity to prove that the offence with which he has been charged was not committed intentionally or negligently.

(c)

The number of points stated in the decision is deducted as an automatic legal consequence of the decision becoming final.

(d)

In the context of the system of driving licences which has been introduced, in which when they are issued a certain number of points is allocated to take into account offences committed, the deduction of points is also taken into account as an automatic legal consequence on the basis of penalty orders which cannot be challenged.

(e)

If the withdrawal of the driving licence due to disqualification from driving, which occurs as an automatic legal consequence of the deduction of the number of points granted on issue of the licence is challenged in court, there is no incidental judicial review of the legality of the penalty orders, by which points have been deducted and which are not subject to challenge.
Top