CJEU Case C-205/23 / Judgment

Engie Romania SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în Domeniul Energiei
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Typ
Decision
Decision date
30/01/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:43
  • CJEU Case C-205/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case: 

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Energy – Internal market in natural gas – Directive 2009/73/EC – Article 3(1) – Obligations of Member States towards natural gas undertakings – Consumer protection – Articles 40 and 41 – Powers of the regulatory authority – Breach by a natural gas undertaking of its duty of transparency towards consumers – Duplication of penalties for the same unlawful conduct – Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence – Ne bis in idem – Article 52(1) – Limitations on the exercise of that fundamental right – Principle of proportionality.

    Outcome of the case: 

        
    On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC must be interpreted as not precluding a national energy regulatory authority, where it finds that a natural gas supplier has failed to fulfil its duty of transparency with regard to its customers, when the price for the supply of that product is adjusted, from requiring that supplier to maintain the price set in the contracts initially concluded with those customers.
    2. Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof,must be interpreted as not precluding a natural gas supplier from being subject, on the basis of different national laws transposing, respectively, Directive 2009/73 and Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to two penalties which must be classified as ‘criminal penalties for identical facts’, provided that:

    –there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions may be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and to ensure coordination between the two competent authorities;

    –the two sets of proceedings concerned have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner and within a proximate timeframe; and

    –all the penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    47. By its second question, the national court asks, in essence, whether Article 50 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a natural gas supplier from being subject, on the basis of different national laws transposing, respectively, Directive 2009/73 and Directive 2005/29, to two penalties for identical facts.

    48. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Charter ‘no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the European Union in accordance with the law’. That fundamental right, an expression of the principle ne bis in idem, prohibits a duplication both of proceedings and of penalties of a criminal nature for the same acts and against the same person (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 March 2018, Menci, C‑524/15, EU:C:2018:197, paragraph 25, and of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

    49. In the first place, Article 50 of the Charter is not limited to proceedings and penalties which are classified as ‘criminal’ by national law, but extends – regardless of such a classification in national law – to proceedings and penalties which must be considered as being criminal in nature on account of the intrinsic nature of the offence or the degree of severity of the penalty which the person concerned is liable to incur (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraphs 25 and 26 and the case-law cited). That degree of severity must be assessed by reference to the maximum penalty for which the relevant provisions provide (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2023, Volkswagen Group Italia and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, C‑27/22, EU:C:2023:663, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    54. In the second place, the application of Article 50 of the Charter is subject to a twofold condition, namely, first, that there must be a prior final decision (the ‘bis’ condition) and, second, that that decision relates to the same facts which are the subject of the subsequent proceedings or decisions (the ‘idem’ condition) (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraph 28).

    55. As regards the ‘bis’ condition, in order for a judicial decision to be regarded as having given a final ruling on the facts subject to a second set of proceedings, that decision must not only have become final, in accordance with national law, but must also have been taken after a determination has been made as to the merits of the case (judgment of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited). Where such a decision exists, Article 50 of the Charter precludes criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts from being initiated or maintained (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2023, Volkswagen Group Italia and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, C‑27/22, EU:C:2023:663, paragraph 59).

    56. In the present case, the file before the Court contains information indicating that the penalty imposed on Engie by the ANPC had been challenged before the Romanian courts and definitively annulled on account of the lack of jurisdiction of that authority. If the national court were to uphold that information, the ‘bis’ condition, examined in the preceding paragraph, would not be satisfied.

    57. By contrast, if the national court were to find that the ‘bis’ condition is satisfied in the present case, it should be noted, as regards the ‘idem’ condition, that it follows from the very wording of Article 50 of the Charter that that provision prohibits the same person from being tried or punished in criminal proceedings more than once for the same offence. The relevant criterion for that purpose is identity of the material facts, understood as the existence of a set of concrete circumstances which are inextricably linked together and which have resulted in the final acquittal or conviction of the person concerned. The legal classification under national law of the facts and the legal interest protected are not relevant for the purposes of establishing the existence of the same offence, in so far as the scope of the protection conferred by Article 50 of the Charter cannot vary from one Member State to another (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraphs 31, 33 and 34).

    58. Since the ‘idem’ condition requires the material facts to be identical, Article 50 of the Charter is not intended to be applied where the facts in question are merely similar. Identity of the material facts must be understood to mean a set of concrete circumstances stemming from events which are, in essence, the same, in that they involve the same perpetrator and are inextricably linked together in time and space (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraphs 36 and 37).

    ...


    60. In the third place, a limitation on the exercise of the fundamental right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter and, therefore, a duplication of criminal proceedings or penalties may be justified on the basis of Article 52(1) thereof. In accordance with the first sentence of that paragraph, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. According to the second sentence of Article 52(1), subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations of those rights and freedoms may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

    61. As regards, first, respect for the essence of the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter, that content is, in principle, respected where national law merely provides only for the possibility of a duplication of proceedings and penalties under different legislation (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraph 43). That is the case here, since the penalties imposed on Engie had been adopted on the basis of different national legislation transposing Directive 2009/73 and Directive 2005/29 respectively.

    ...


    69. In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 50 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a natural gas supplier from being subject, on the basis of different national laws transposing, respectively, Directive 2009/73 and Directive 2005/29, to two penalties which must be classified as ‘criminal penalties for identical facts’ provided that:

    –there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions may be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and to ensure coordination between the two competent authorities;

    –the two sets of proceedings concerned have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner and within a proximate timeframe; and

    –all the penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)