Influence of the principles of EU law on the imposition of fines by national public administration authorities

Logo NCN



Grant description

The impact of EU law principles on the imposition of fines by national administration authorities.

”Will they fine me or not?”; “Can I successfully defend myself in this way?”; ”How high may actually the fine be?”; “Can the court do something about this fine?”; “How to persuade the court to accept my arguments?” – an entrepreneur operating in Poland may often be forced to think about such dilemmas. Plain analysis of provisions dealing with substantive rules of EU law in the area of competition, consumer protection or regulation of telecommunications, energy or railway industries do not provide answers to these questions. Both provisions of Polish and EU laws in force hardly contain any specific rules which one may use to answer these questions. However these answers can be found in a whole spectrum of European principlesackn owledged in the caselaw of the European Court of Justice or derived directly from the founding treaties that bind national administrative authorities and courts of an EU Member State when imposing fines on the basis of national laws. These principles must be respected in any fining proceedings that fall within the scope of application of EU law

This project is intended to verify when and what types of principles of EU law actually are applicable in fining proceedings before national administrative authorities and how this whole spectrum of different principles of EU law influences the way in which administrative authorities in the Member States apply national provisions in the course of fining proceedings. These principles also make an impact on the way the national courts should assess the legality and regularity of fines imposed by administrative authorities. Principles to researched in the project grant individual undertakings rights which must be respected in the course of national fining proceedings. Therefore it is important to examine the legal basis and the extent to which EU law – through its principles – may intervene in the sphere of formulating, interpreting and applying national legislation concerning administrative fines.

The proposed research project aims at filling the gap in the existing knowledge of the EU law and its interactions with national law. There are no publications analysing in depth the interactions between national fining proceedings and EU law outside the area of competition law. The research will result with a complex analysis of Polish legislation imposing fines in for areas of law and the application of this legislation in practice from the point of view of compatibility of national provisions and their application with standards stemming from EU law. The practical effect of the research will be a common legal research matrix that could be used to assess compatibility of fining provisions, policies and practice in all other areas of law outside of the project but still falling within the scope of application of EU law.

dr hab. Dawid Miąsik, prof. INP PAN

Since 2013 professor at the European Law Chair, Institute of Legal Studies. Master of Law (Marie Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin, Faculty of Law); since 1999 assistant and then Associate Professor, Jean Monnet European Union Law Chair, Faculty of Law, Marie Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin (2002-2006); Associate Professor, Competition Law Chair, Institute of Legal Studies (2006-2012).

Judge of the Polish Supreme Court, Labour and Social Security Chamber (previously Labour, Social Security and Public Affairs Chamber) since 2014. From 2006 to 2014 had been advising the Supreme Court in various EU, competition, and regulation cases. As a judge rapporteur has adjudicated various issues of EU labour, social security, state aid, competition, telecommunications, energy, commercial and consumer protection law, and the rule of law. Member of judicial panels that made most of the preliminary references originating from the Polish Supreme Court, including C-585/18 A.K.


dr Michalina Szpyrka

Dr. Michalina Szpyrka obtained her Ph.D. degree in 2020 at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw on the basis of her doctoral dissertation “European standards of imposing fines based on Polish telecommunications law” (supervisor Prof. Robert Grzeszczak).

From 2015, she was employed as a judge assistant, and then a senior judge assistant in the Labor and Social Insurance Chamber of the Supreme Court (until spring 2018 – in the Labor, Social Insurance and Public Affairs Chamber). From 2020, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law of the SWPS University in Warsaw, conducting classes in the field of European law, competition law, civil procedure, and interpretation of the law. Author of the Supreme Court’s studies in the field of European law, published in the European Court Review, and in the field of administrative law, published in the Scientific Journals of Administrative Judiciary. Two-time scholarship holder of projects financed by the National Science Center, implemented at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Warsaw.


mgr Kamil Kapica

PhD student at the Doctoral School of Social Sciences and the graduate of the Faculty of Law and Administration at the University of Warsaw. Repeatedly awarded for scientific achievements, incl. scholarship of the Minister of Education for significant scientific achievements (2019/2020 and 2020/2021) and the Rector’s Scholarships for the best students. Professionally deals with consumer protection and competition law, the regulatory area of financial and insurance sector services and personal data protection. His doctoral dissertation, being prepared under the supervision of prof. Robert Grzeszczak, deals with the issues of data-driven (electoral) campaigns and their algorithmization in the light of the principle of free and fair elections in European law.

He is also a scholarship holder in the scientific grant financed by the National Science Center (NCN), entitled “The impact of EU law on the imposition of fines by national public administration authorities”, which is carried out at the Institute of Legal Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences (INP PAN).

e-mail: kp.kapica@uw.edu.pl / kapica.kamil@gmail.com


Case C-617/10 Fransson is a leading decision in demonstrating the link between national proceedings for imposing a fine and EU law. In this case, it was established that national tax sanctions and criminal proceedings for tax evasion ensure the effectiveness of EU tax law. As a result of this case, national fining procedures fall within the scope of EU law whenever they are conducted with the aim of punishing an individual for failing to fulfill an obligation which, even indirectly, as in the case of directives, stems from EU law.

On the other hand, in case C-390/12 Pfleger, it was demonstrated that EU law was linked to national criminal proceedings by the interference of national provisions sanctioned by fines with the freedoms of the internal market. The CJEU, while developing the ERT formula, ruled that the use of the NAA by a Member State of the exceptions provided for in EU law to justify impeding the NAA’s exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty should be regarded as “implementing the Union’s “law” within the meaning of Art. 51 sec. 1 KPP. Therefore, NAAs must verify in criminal proceedings whether national laws prohibiting traders from certain activities or imposing obligations under the threat of a fine comply with EU fundamental rights.

It follows from C-617/10 Fransson and C-390/12 Pfleger that Art. 51 of the Charter covers both the derogation and the situation of “acting as a proxy”. NAAs are bound by EU fundamental rights when they take actions targeting individuals that affect their legal situation directly or indirectly governed by EU law, whether primary or secondary.

The general principles of law also apply to domestic proceedings which fall within the scope of EU law and supplement the rights enshrined in the Charter. Therefore, there is no need to introduce provisions such as Art. 3 of the NCN+ Directive, which explicitly states that national competition authorities must respect EU fundamental rights and general principles of law in proceedings for imposing fines where Art. 101 and 102 TFEU.

The direct impact of EU law on national sanctions and criminal proceedings can take various forms:

  • sources of EU secondary law usually include a specific provision on the obligation for Member States to impose fines in the event of an infringement of national provisions adopted pursuant to a specific directive or “to take all necessary measures to ensure that those penalties are enforced”. This is often complemented by the obligation to provide for penalties that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”, which compels the NAA to comply with the general principle of proportionality.

  • in the case of regulations, Member States may be required to introduce penalties for non-compliance with certain obligations. For example, Art. 14 of Regulation 2018/1672 provides for the obligation to introduce sanctions for failure to comply with the obligation set out in Art. 3, or the obligation to disclose cash in transit, specified in Art. 4.

  • EU law may specify the type, form, and level of sanctions that the Member States should provide for in their legal systems. For example, Article 3 sec. 23 of Directive 2014/40/EU explicitly mentions an “administrative fine” as one of the penalties that may be applied by Member States.

  • EU law may provide for a procedure to delay the NAA’s power to impose penalties (Directives 2002/20). In such cases, EU law requires the NAA to impose a fine on entrepreneurs not for failure to comply with the obligation resulting from EU directives and executive acts, but only for failure to comply with administrative decisions finding such a violation and obliging the entrepreneur concerned to behave in accordance with EU law.

National regulatory authorities, which are emanations of a Member State, are obliged to comply with EU law and apply all its principles on an equal footing with judicial authorities, which is determined by the Costanzo formula. In practice, this means that public administration bodies, bound by the provisions of primary and secondary law, are obliged to verify whether EU law is applicable in a given case. If the answer to this question is affirmative, then national regulatory authorities are obliged to determine the appropriate interpretation of binding EU law, with reference to the case law of the CJEU, and to determine how this interpretation affects the application of national law. In certain cases, this may condition the need to apply a consistent interpretation or, in the absence of such a possibility, refusal to apply a provision of national law that is incompatible with EU law. [See Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union: 22 June 1989, C-103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256; of July 3, 2014, C-129/13 and C-130/13, Kamino International Logistics BV and Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën ECLI:EU:C:2014:2041; of 5 March 2019, C-349/17, Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus and Majandus-ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, ECLI:EU:C:2019:172; Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018, C-378/17, Minister for Justice and Equality and Garda Síochána Commissioner v. Workplace Relations Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2018:979.

The qualification of a fine as a criminal sanction makes it possible to apply the provisions of EU law, but it does not affect the norm of EU law. They have one application to sanctions provided for in national law. Article 47 of the CFR and the principle of proportionality provide an excellent one. First, it protects the unit from arbitral and unlawful actions of the authorities. In the result addressee of EU law, they have the right to challenge in court the legality of any decision issued by any national authority aimed at implementing EU law [CJ judgment of 16 May 2017, Berlioz Investment Fund, C-682/15, point 51]. As for the principle of proportionality, it has a twofold character. As a fundamental right introduced in Art. 49 sec. 3 CFR only applies to criminal sanctions; as a general principle of EU law, it applies to all other national fine proceedings [CJ judgment of 16 July 2015, Chmielewski, C-255/14, para. 21 and 22]. It also has a wilder scope of application than Art. 49 sec. 3 CFR. It was used to test not only the severity of the punishment imposed. Proportionality involves an assessment of all the factors that may be taken into account in setting such a fine, as well as the conditions of the specific infringements [Judgments of the CJ of 31 May 2018, Lu Zheng, C-190/17, para 40, of 9 February 2012, Márton Urbán, C‑210/10, para 53 – 54].

The principles of EU law may complement the EU fundamental rights recognized in the Charter if the personal or material scope of application of the fundamental right is narrower than the general principle of EU law on the basis of which the fundamental right was introduced. An example is the principle of good administration. Although the Charter contains a fundamental right (Article 41), it only binds the European institutions. As a general principle of EU law, the principle of good administration also applies to the NAA. [Judgment of the CJ of 14 November 2021, MT v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, C-231/20].

The ne bis in idem principle (Article 50 CFR) – impact on the decision of initiating proceedings for imposing a fine and on the effective imposition / non-imposition of a penalty [Judgement of 5 May 2022, Criminal proceedings against BV, C-570/ 20].

Right of defense (Article 48 CFR) – must be respected throughout the criminal proceedings, C‑358/16, para. 60; of 26 September 2013, Texdata Software, C-418/11, paras 79 and 83]. It affects the interpretation and application of national procedural rules

Presumption of innocence (Article 48 CFR) – it is forbidden to impose fines on natural persons for violations attributed to the enterprise, unless their individual liability has been established [Judgement of the CJ of 10 November 2022, DELTA STROY 2003, C-203/21, para 45-46]. The principle of legal certainty (Article 49 CFR) – impact on the interpretation and compliance of substantive law provisions and penalties. includes a bundle of principles (fundamental law: nullum crimen sine lege (Article 49(1) sentence 1 of the CFR), nulla poena sine lege (Article 49(1) sentence 2 of the CFR). Acts for the benefit of individuals by limiting the scope of application of criminal proceedings by restrictive interpretation [judgments of the CJ of 9 September 2021, Criminal proceedings against FO, C-906/19, para 45-46 and of the CJ of 20 December 2017, Vaditrans BVBA , C-102/16, para 51].

Principles of proportionality of sanctions (Article 49(3) of the CFR) – impact on the decision of the NAA as to the amount of the penalty [Judgments of the CJ of 14 May 2020, T-Systems, C-263/19, para 74 and 75; of 24 February 2022, C-452/20,PJ,para 54; of 16 July 2015, Chmielewski, para 29] and the very NAA’s decision on punishing a specific person (e.g. in case of violation of a national rule, regardless of the specific circumstances) [CJ judgments of February 28, 2018, MA.T.I. SUD SpA, C-523/16 and C-536/16, of 4 October 2018, Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N, C-384/17].

The right to an effective remedy against a decision imposing a fine (Article 47 of the CFR) – applies already at the stage of national fining proceedings. It obliges to adequately justify fine decisions [Judgments of the Court of 15 May 1986, Marguerite Johnston, C-222/84; of 24 November 2020, R.N.N.S. and K.A., C-225/19; of 8 May 2019, PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirolz, C‑230/18, para 91; of 4 June 2013, ZZ, C-300/11, para 53; of 16 May 2017, Berlioz Investment Fund, C‑682/15, para 84].

The CJ ruled that the primacy principle obliges national authorities not to apply national legislation that is only partially incompatible with the principle of proportionality only to the extent “necessary to enable and impose proportionate penalties”. Since the judgment in case C-205/20, it is possible to omit the application of not only the entire provision of national law (individual article, paragraph, point or paragraph of the article), but also its smaller part, not distinguished as a separate editorial unit of the provision (word, set of words, number , sum, etc.). As a result, the infringer does not go unpunished (as in case C-384/17 Link Logistic), but is punished with a fine lower than that provided for in national law.

Independence is one of the basic requirements for judiciary bodies, which decide authoritatively about the rights and obligations of legal entities. However, these functions are more and more often taken over by public administration bodies, issuing decisions granting powers and even imposing severe fines. In connection with this trend in doctrine and jurisprudence, a discussion has arisen on the need for public administration bodies to be independent. The EU institutions also recognize this need, which introduces a requirement to ensure the independence of competition protection and regulatory authorities. In connection with the review of the telecommunications market, the regulation of the independence of NRAs was extended in the European Code of Electronic Communications, which should be implemented into national legal orders by December 21, 2020. The regulation of independence adopted in the ECEC is formal and residual. It does not provide for any powers for regulated entities to enforce the requirement of independence of the NRA, and its vagueness may lead to incorrect implementation and politicization of the telecommunications market regulatory authority.

More on the independence of the President of UKE in the article by Dr. Michalina Szpyrka: Signification of the independence of the President of UKE for the implementation of EU fundamental rights on the example of proceedings for imposing a fines on the basis of telecommunications law: https://ikar.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/numery/ikar_4_12/IKAR_412-23_7_SZPYRKA.pdf (Polish language only).

Examples of fines proceedings in which it is necessary to respect the principles of EU law (in particular proportionality)

  1. Fining proceedings for infringement of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009, consisting in violating the ban on fishing using automatic sorting devices (judgment of the Court of Justice of February 11, 2021, C 77/20, K.M., ECLI:EU:C:2021:112).
  2. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009, consisting in violating the ban on fishing using automatic sorting devices (order of the Court of Justice of March 1, 2022, C 493/21, K.M., unpublished).
  3. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1889/2005 by failing to declare cash imported into the EU (judgment of the Court of Justice of May 31, 2018, C-190/17, Zheng, ECLI:EU:C:2018:357).
  4. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1889/2005 by failing to declare cash imported into the EU (judgment of the Court of Justice of July 16, 2015, C-255/14, Chmielewski, ECLI:EU:C:2015:475).
  5. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC, consisting in failure to return greenhouse gas emission allowances on time (order of the Court of Justice of March 26, 2020, C-113/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:228).
  6. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC, consisting in failure to return greenhouse gas emission allowances on time (judgment of the Court of Justice of October 17, 2013, C 203/12, Billerud Karlsborg AB, ECLI:EU:C:2013:664).
  7. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, consisting in identifying tax irregularities (faulty VAT declaration) and evading the payment of income tax (judgment of the Court of Justice of May 5, 2022, C-570/20, Criminal proceedings against BV, ECLI:EU:C:2022:348).
  8. Fining proceedings for infringement of the provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. involving the commission of the crime of destruction of property and looting (judgment of the Court of Justice of July 14, 2022, C-168/21, Procureur général près la cour d’appel d’Angers, ECLI:EU:C:2022:558).
  9. Fining proceedings for violation of national provisions (Article 63 TFEU), consisting in non-performance, incorrect performance or late performance of the information obligation regarding goods and rights located abroad, i.e. preventing taxation (judgment of the Court of Justice of January 27, 2022, C- 788/19, Commission v. Kingdom of Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2022:55).
  10. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 77/799/EEC, consisting in failure to report assets and income held abroad, i.e. preventing taxation on this account (judgment of the Court of Justice of June 11, 2009, X and E.H. Passenheim, C-155/08 , ECLI:EU:C:2009:368).
  11. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directives 2006/123/EC, 2007/23/EC and 2013/29/EU, consisting in storing products exceeding the maximum permissible content of pyrotechnic materials indicated in the permit (judgment of the Court of Justice of September 26, 2018, Van Gennip BBVA, C-137/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:771).
  12. Fining proceedings for infringement of the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No. 3821/85, consisting in failure to submit the required record sheets from the vehicle’s tachograph (judgment of the Court of Justice of March 24, 2021, Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze v MI and TB, C-870/19 and C-871/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:233).
  13. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006, consisting in the lack of a tachograph and a handwritten record specifying the activities performed by drivers (judgment of the Court of Justice of June 9, 2016, C-287/14, Eurospeed Ltd v. Szegedi Törvényszék, ECLI:EU:C:2016:420).
  14. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No. 3821/85, consisting in failure to comply with the requirements regarding charts of the recording device – tachograph (judgment of the Court of Justice of February 9, 2012, C-210/10, Urban, ECLI:EU:C:2012:64).
  15. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2006/112, consisting in incorrect application of the reverse VAT mechanism (judgment of the Court of Justice of April 26, 2017, C-564/15, Tibor Farkas v. Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, ECLI:EU:C:2017:302).
  16. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 561/2006, consisting in violating the regulations on drivers’ working time (judgment of the Court of Justice of October 19, 2016, C-501/14, EL-EM-2001 Ltd v. Nemzeti Adó-és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága, ECLI:EU:C:2016:777).
  17. Fining proceedings for violation of national provisions (Articles 49 and 56 TFEU), consisting in violation of the provisions of the contract giving access to a concession (judgment of the Court of Justice of December 20, 2017, Global Starnet Ltd, C-322/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:985).
  18. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006, consisting in incorrectly completing documents regarding the shipment of waste (judgment of the Court of Justice of June 9, 2016, Nutrivet D.O.O.E.L. v. Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség, C-69/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:425).
  19. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1013/20006, consisting in incorrectly completing documents regarding the shipment of waste (judgment of the Court of Justice of November 26, 2015, S.C. Total Waste Recycling, C-487/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:780).
  20. Fining proceedings for violation of the provisions of Directive 2006/123/EC, consisting in failure to present payroll documents and failure to obtain administrative permits when providing cross-border labor (judgment of the Court of Justice of September 12, 2019, Maksimovic and others, C-64/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:723).
  21. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, consisting in submitting a faulty VAT return and its incorrect correction (judgment of the Court of Justice of April 15, 2021, C 935/19, Grupa Warzyczna sp. z o.o., ECLI:EU:C:2021:287).
  22. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, consisting in submitting a faulty VAT return and its incorrect correction (judgment of the Court of Justice of July 2, 2020, C 835/18, Terracult, ECLI:EU:C:2020:520).
  23. Fining proceedings for infringement of the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, consisting in unlawful deduction of VAT (judgment of the Court of Justice of May 8, 2019, C-712/17, EN.SA., ECLI:EU:C:2019:374 ).
  24. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 1999/62/EC, consisting in traveling on a toll road without purchasing a ticket before starting the road (judgment of the Court of Justice of October 4, 2018, Link Logistics, C-384/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:810).
  25. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005, consisting in placing on the market a product unfit for human consumption (judgment of the Court of Justice of November 13, 2014, C-443/13, Ute Reindl v. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2370).
  26. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC by failing to present a passport or other document when crossing the border (judgment of the Court of Justice of October 6, 2021, C 35/20, A, ECLI:EU:C:2021:813).
  27. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/849, consisting in violating the provisions on the payment of money by transfer (judgment of the Court of Justice of October 6, 2021, C 544/19, ECOTEX BULGARIA” EOOD, ECLI:EU:C:2021:803).
  28. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU, consisting in non-compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement Act (judgment of the Court of Justice of May 14, 2020, T-Systems, C-263/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:373).
  29. Fining proceedings for violating the provisions of Directive 2001/34/EC by presenting false data in an issue prospectus (judgment of the Court of Justice of July 5, 2007, Ntionik and Pikoulas, C-430/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:410 ).
  30. Fining proceedings for infringement of the provisions of the eleventh Directive 89/666/EEC, consisting in failure to submit annual financial statements (judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 September 2013, Textdata Software, C-418/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:588).
  31. Fining proceedings for infringement of national provisions (Articles 43 and 49 EC), consisting in infringement of the provisions on holding a license when organizing games of chance (judgment of the Court of Justice of March 6, 2007, Placanica, C-338/04, C-359/04 , C-360/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:133).
  32. Fining proceedings for infringement of national provisions (Articles 43 and 49 EC), consisting in infringement of the provisions on holding a license in the case of organizing games of chance (judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 September 2011, Dickinger Omer, C-347/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:582).

Examples of national fining proceedings in which it is necessary to respect the principles of EU law:

  1. Art. 106 section 1 Act of February 16, 2007 on competition and consumer protection (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1689, as amended):
    1. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of September 5, 2023 No. RKT-7/2023 (connection with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 11, 2005 regarding unfair commercial practices used by enterprises towards consumers on 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 – OJ EU Office 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    2. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of August 31, 2023, No. DOZIK 8/2023 (connection with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 11, 2005 regarding unfair commercial practices used by enterprises towards consumers on 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 – OJ EU Office 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    3. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of September 18, 2023, No. RWR 7 / 2023 2023 (link with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 regarding unfair commercial practices used by enterprises towards consumers 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 – OJ EU 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    4. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of February 27, 2023, No. RKT-1/2023 (connection with EU law, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of December 16, 2002 on the implementation of the competition rules established in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty – OJ EU 2003 L 1, p. 1);
    5. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of June 5, 2023, No. DOK-1/2023 (connection with EU law, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of December 16, 2002 on the implementation of the competition rules established in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty – OJ EU 2003 L 1, p. 1);
    6. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of December 28, 2022, No. RKR – 2/2022 (connection with EU law, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the competition rules established in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty – OJ EU 2003 L 1, p. 1);
    7. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection by decision of June 6, 2023, No. RBG -3/2023 (connection with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 11, 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices used by businesses towards consumers 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 Council – OJ EU 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    8. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of September 21, 2023, No. DOZIK-9/2023 (connection with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices used by enterprises towards consumers 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 – OJ EU 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    9. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of September 5, 2023 No. DOK-1/2022 (connection with EU law, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of December 16, 2002 on the implementation of the competition rules established in Art. 81 and 82 of the Treaty – OJ EU 2003 L 1, p. 1);
    10. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of May 9, 2022, No. DOZIK-8/2022 (connection with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 11, 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices used by enterprises towards consumers 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 – OJ EU 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    11. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of January 14, 2020, No. DOZIK-2/2020 (connection with EU law, Article 13 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices used by enterprises towards consumers 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 – OJ EU 2005 L 149, p. 22);
    12. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of December 29, 2022, No. DOZIK-16/2022 (connection with EU law, Article 8b of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of April 5, 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts – OJ EU Office 1993 L 95, p. 29);
  2. Art. 106 section 2 Act of February 16 2007 on competition and consumer protection (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1689, as amended):
    1. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of July 29, 2020, No. DKK-141/2020 (connection with EU law, Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 of January 20, 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings – OJ EU 2004 L 24, p. 1);
    2. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of November 7, 2019, No. DKK-217/2019 (connection with EU law, Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 of January 20, 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings – OJ EU 2004 L 24, p. 1);
  3. Article 106b Act of February 16, 2007 on competition and consumer protection (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1689, as amended):
    1. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of December 29, 2023, No. RGD-14/2023 (connection with EU law Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 23, 2009 on orders to discontinue harmful practices for the protection of interests consumers – OJ EU 2009 L 110, p. 30);
  4. Art. Art. 33 of the Act of December 15, 2016 on Counteracting the Unfair Use of Contractual Advantage in the Trade of Agricultural and Food Products (currently Article 41 et next the Act of November 17, 2021 on Counteracting the Unfair Use of Contractual Advantage in the Trade of Agricultural and Food Products food – Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1773):
    1. Decision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection of December 11, 2020, No. RBG – 13/2020 (connection with EU law, Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 17, 2019 on unfair commercial practices in relations between entrepreneurs in the supply chain of agricultural and food products – OJ EU 2019, L 111, p. 59);
  5. Art. 102 and Art. 103 of the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data in connection with this (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2019, item 1781):
    1. Decision of the President of the Personal Data Protection Office of October 18, 2023, No. DKN.5131.55.2022 (link with EU law, Articles 83 and 84 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons in in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC – OJ EU 2016 L 119, p. 1);
    2. Decision of the President of the Personal Data Protection Office of December 20, 2023, No. DKN.5131.32.2023 (link with EU law, Articles 83 and 84 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons in in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC – OJ EU 2016 L 119, p. 1);
    3. Decision of the President of the Personal Data Protection Office of September 10, 2019, No. ZSPR.421.2.2019 (connection with EU law, Articles 83 and 84 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons in in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC – OJ EU 2016 L 119, p. 1);
  6. Article 104 of the Act of 12 June 2015 on the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 589, as amended):
    1. Decision of the Silesian Provincial Inspector of Environmental Protection of November 30, 2023 (link with EU law Regulation (EU) 2016/792 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on harmonized consumer price indices and the residential property price index and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 – OJ EU 2016 L 135, p. 11, Article 4(3) TEU);
  7. Art. 293 of the Act of April 27, 2001, Environmental Protection Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 54) in connection with Art. 194 section 1 and 2 of the Act of December 14, 2012 on waste (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1587, as amended):
    1. Decision of the Marshal of the Lower Silesian Voivodeship of November 2, 2021 (link with EU law, Article 36 and recital 45 to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives – OJ EU 2008 L 312, p. 3);
  8. Article 147 et seq. of the Act of March 1, 2018 on counteracting money laundering and terrorism financing (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1124, as amended):
    1. Decision of the General Financial Inspectorate of 21 September 2023 (link with EU law, Article 58 and recital 59 to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC – OJ EU 2015 L, p. 73 );
    2. Decision of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority of March 29, 2022 (link with EU law, Article 58 and recital 59 to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC – OJ EU 2015 L, p. 73 );
  9. Article 141 of the Act of August 29, 1997, Banking Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 2488, as amended):
    1. Decision of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority of September 28, 2022, (link with EU law Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the conditions for admitting credit institutions to operate and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC – OJ EU 2013 L 176, p. 338).
Wykaz orzeczeń do zasady legalności odpowiedzialności represyjnej /Index of judgements concerning the principle of legality criminal offences and penalties

  1. wyr. TS z 10.7.1984 r., C-63/83, Regina przeciwko Kent Kirk, ECLI:EU:C:1984:255,
  2. wyr. TS z 26.9.1986 r., C-168/95, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Luciano Arcaro, ECLI:EU:C:1996:107; z 11.11.2004 r., C-457/02, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Antonio Niselli, ECLI:EU:C:2004:707,
  3. wyr. TS z 8.10.1986 r., C-80/86, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV, ECLI:EU:C:1987:431,
  4. wyr. TS z 13.11.1990 r., C-331/88, The Queen przeciwko Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food i Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: Fedesa i in., ECLI:EU:C:1990:391,
  5. wyr. TS z 12.12.1996 r., C-74/95 i C-129/95, Postępowania karne przeciwko X, ECLI:EU:C:1996:491,
  6. wyr. TS 7.1.2004 r., C-60/02, Postępowanie karne przeciwko X, ECLI:EU:C:2004:10,
  7. wyr. TS z 15.7.2004 r., C-459/02, Willy Gerekens i Association agricole pour la promotion de la commercialisation laitière Procola przeciwko État du grand-duché de Luxembourg, ECLI:EU:C:2004:454,
  8. wyr. TS z 11.11.2004 r., C-457/02, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Antonio Niselli, ECLI:EU:C:2012:396,
  9. wyr. TS z 3.5.2005 r., C-387/02, C-391/02 oraz C-403/02, Postępowania karne przeciwko Silvio Berlusconi, Sergio Adelchi i Marcello Dell’Utri i in., ECLI:EU:C:2005:270,
  10. wyr. TS z 16.6.2005 r., C-105/03, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Maria Pupino, ECLI:EU:C:2007:261,
  11. wyr. TS z 28.6.2005 r., C-189/02 P, C-189/02 P, Dansk Rørindustri A/S, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH i in., KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, LR af 1998 A/S, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, LR af 1998 (Deutschland) GmbH i ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, ECLI:EU:C:2005:408,
  12. wyr. TS z 3.5.2007 r., C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW przeciwko Leden van de Ministerraad, ECLI:EU:C:2007:261,
  13. wyr. TS z 7.6.2007 r., C-76/06 P, Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, ECLI:EU:C:2007:326,
  14. wyr. TS z 3.6.2008 r., C-308/06, The Queen, na wniosek International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) i in. przeciwko Secretary of State for Transport, ECLI:EU:C:2008:312,
  15. wyr. TS z 10.11.2011 R., C-405/10, Postępowanie karne p. QB, ECLI:EU:C:2011:722,
  16. wyr. z 28.6.2012 r., Caronna, C-7/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:396,
  17. wyr. TS z 8.9.2015 r., C-105/14, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Ivo Taricco i in., ECLI:EU:C:2015:555,
  18. wyr. TS z 6.10.2015 r., C-650/13, Thierry Delvigne przeciwko Commune de Lesparre Médoc i Préfet de la Gironde, ECLI:EU:C:2015:648,
  19. wyr. TS z 22.10.2015 r., C-194/14 P, AC-Treuhand AG przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej, ECLI:EU:C:2015:717,
  20. wyr. TS z 6.10.2016 r., C-218/15, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Gianpaolowi Paolettiemu i in., ECLI:EU:C:2016:748, pkt 28,
  21. wyr. TS: z 8.11.2016 r., C-554/14, Atanas Ognyanov, ECLI:EU:C:2016:835,
  22. wyr. TS z 28.3.2017 r., C-72/15, PJSC Rosneft Oil Company przeciwko Her Majesty’s Treasury i in., ECLI:EU:C:2017:236,
  23. wyr. TS z 29.6.2017 r., C-579/15, Openbaar Ministerie przeciwko Danielowi Adamowi Popławskiemu, ECLI:EU:C:2017:503,
  24. wyr. TS z 26.10.2017 r., C-534/16, Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky przeciwko BB construct s. r. o., ECLI:EU:C:2017:820,
  25. wyr. TS z 5.12.2017 r., C-42/17, Postępowanie karne przeciwko M.A.S. i M.B., ECLI:EU:C:2017:936,
  26. wyr. TS z 20.12.2017 r., C-102/16, Vaditrans BVBA przeciwko Belgische Staat, ECLI:EU:C:2017:1012,
  27. wyr. TS z 20.3.2018 r., C-524/15, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Luce Menciemu, ECLI:EU:C:2018:197 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  28. wyr. TS z 20.3.2018 r., C-537/16, Garlsson Real Estate SA i in. przeciwko Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), ECLI:EU:C:2018:193 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  29. wyr. TS z 7.8.2018 r., C-115/17, Administration des douanes et droits indirects i Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) przeciwko Hubertowi Clergeau i in., ECLI:EU:C:2018:651,
  30. wyr. TS z 24.6.2019 r., C-573/17, Daniel Adam Popławski, ECLI:EU:C:2019:530,
  31. wyr. TS z 12.9.2019 r., C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 i C-148/18, Zoran Maksimovic i in., ECLI:EU:C:2019:723 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  32. wyr. TS z 11.6.2020 r., C-634/18, Postępowanie karne przeciwko JI, ECLI:EU:C:2020:455,
  33. wyr. TS z 24.3. 2021 r., C-870/19, Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze przeciwko MI i TB, ECLI:EU:C:2021:233 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  34. wyr. TS z 9.9.2021 r., C‑906/19, FO przeciwko Ministère public, ECLI:EU:C:2021:715,
  35. wyr. TS z 5.5.2022 r., C-570/20, Postępowanie karne przeciwko BV, ECLI:EU:C:2022:348.
Wykaz orzeczeń do zasady ne bis in idem /Index of judgements concerning principle of ne bis in idem

  1. wyr. TS z 5.6.2014 r., C-398/12, M, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1057,
  2. wyr. TS z 15.10.2002 r., C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, od C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P i C-254/99 P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij i in./Komisja, ECLI:EU:C:2002:582,
  3. wyr. TS z 11.2.2003 r., C-187/01 i C-385/01, Postępowania karne przeciwko Hüseyin Gözütok i Klaus Brügge, ECLI:EU:C:2003:87,
  4. wyr. TS z 10.3.2005 r., C-469/03, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Filomeno Mario Miraglia, ECLI:EU:C:2005:156,
  5. wyr. TS z 9.3.2006 r., C-436/04, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Leopold Henri Van Esbroeck, ECLI:EU:C:2006:165,
  6. wyr. TS z 28.9.2006 r., C-150/05, Jean Leon Van Straaten przeciwko Staat der Nederlanden i Republiek Italië, ECLI:EU:C:2006:614,
  7. wyr. TS z 28.9.2006 r., C-467/04, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Giuseppe Francesco Gasparini i innym, ECLI:EU:C:2006:610,
  8. wyr. TS z 18.7.2007 r., C-367/05, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Norma Kraaijenbrink, ECLI:EU:C:2007:444,
  9. wyr. TS z 18.7.2007 r., C-288/05, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Jürgen Kretzinger, ECLI:EU:C:2007:441,
  10. wyr. TS z 11.12.2008 r., C-297/07, Klaus Bourquain, ECLI:EU:C:2008:708,
  11. wyr. TS z 22.12.2008 r., C-491/07, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Vladimir Turanský, ECLI:EU:C:2008:768,
  12. wyr. TS z 16.11.2010 r., C-261/09, Gaetano Mantello, ECLI:EU:C:2010:683,
  13. wyr. TS z 21.7.2011 r., C-150/10, Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge przeciwko Beneo-Orafti SA, ECLI:EU:C:2011:507,
  14. wyr. TS z 14.2.2012 r., C-17/10, Toshiba Corporation i in. przeciwko Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže, ECLI:EU:C:2012:72 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  15. wyr. TS z 5.6.2012 r., C-489/10, Prokurator Generalny przeciwko Łukasz Marcin Bonda, ECLI:EU:C:2012:319,
  16. wyr. TS z 26.2.2013 r., C-617/10, Åklagaren przeciwko Hansowi Åkerbergowi Franssonowi, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  17. wyr. TS z 27.5.2014 r., C-129/14 PPU, Zoran Spasic, ECLI:EU:C:2014:586,
  18. wyr. TS z 29.6.2016 r., C-486/14, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Piotrowi Kossowskiemu, ECLI:EU:C:2016:483,
  19. wyr. TS z 5.4.2017 r., C-217/15 i C-350/15, Postępowania karne przeciwko Massimowi Orsiniemu i Lucianowi Baldettiemu, ECLI:EU:C:2017:264 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  20. wyr. TS z 26.10.2017 r., C-534/16, Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky przeciwko BB construct s. r. o., ECLI:EU:C:2017:820,
  21. wyr. TS z 20.3.2018 r., C-537/16, Garlsson Real Estate SA i in. przeciwko Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), ECLI:EU:C:2018:193 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  22. wyr. TS z 20.3.2018 r., C-524/15, Postępowanie karne przeciwko Luce Menciemu, ECLI:EU:C:2018:197 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  23. wyr. TS z 20.3.2018 r., C-596/16 i C-597/16, Enzo Di Puma przeciwko Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) i Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) przeciwko Antoniowi Zecce, ECLI:EU:C:2018:192 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  24. wyr. TS z 25.7.2018 r., C-268/17, AY, ECLI:EU:C:2018:602,
  25. wyr. TS z 4.10.2018 r., C-384/17, Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N przeciwko Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya, ECLI:EU:C:2018:810 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  26. wyr. TS z 24.10.2018 r., C-234/17, XC i in., ECLI:EU:C:2018:853,
  27. wyr. TS z 3.4.2019 r., C-617/17, Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. przeciwko Prezesowi Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, ECLI:EU:C:209:283 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  28. wyr. TS z 4.3.2020 r., C-10/18P, Mowi ASA przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej, ECLI:EU:C:2020:149,
  29. wyr. TS z 25.02.2021 r., C-857/19, Slovak Telekom a.s. przeciwko Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky, ECLI:EU:C:2021:139 (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings).
Wykaz orzeczeń do zasady proporcjonalności /Index of judgements concerning principle of proportionality

  1. wyr. TS. z 4.10.2018 r., Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N, C-384/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:810, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  2. wyr. TS z 17.4.2018 r., Egenberger, C-414/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:257,
  3. wyr. TS z 27.6.2019 r., Azienda Agricola Barausse Antonio e Gabriele – Società semplice, C-348/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:545,
  4. wyr. TS z 2.5.2019 r., Lavorgna Srl, C-309/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:350,
  5. wyr. TS z 11.4.2019 r., Repsol Butano SA, C-473/17 i C-546/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:308;
  6. wyr. TS z 8.2.2018 r., Lloyd’s of London, C-144/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:78,
  7. wyr. TS z 29.7.2019 r., Spiegel Online GmbH, C-516/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:625,
  8. wyr. TS z 1.12.2011 r., Painer, C-145/10, EU:C:2011:798,
  9. wyr. TS z 29.7.2019 r., Funke Medien NRW GmbH, C-469/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:623,
  10. wyr. TS z 30.4.2019 r., Republika Włoska p. Radzie Unii Europejskiej, C-611/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:332,
  11. wyr. TS z 26.5.2016 r., Komisja Europejska p. Republice Grecji, C-244/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:359,
  12. wyr. TS z 6.7.1956 r., Fédération charbonnière de Belgique p. Wysokiej Władzy, C-8/55, ECLI:EU:C:1956:7;
  13. wyr. TS z 12.6.1958 r., Compagnie des hauts fourneaux de Chasse p. Wysokiej Władzy, C-15/57, ECLI:EU:C:1958:6.
  14. wyr. TS z 23.10.1973 r., Balkan Import Export GmbH p. Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof, C-5/73. ECLI:EU:C:1973:109;
  15. wyr. TS z 24.10.1973 r., Schlüter p. Hauptzollamt Lörrach, C-9/73, ECLI:EU:C:1973:110.
  16. wyr. TS. z 20.5.1976 r., De Peijper, C-104/75, ECLI:EU:C:1976:67;
  17. wyr. TS z 17.12.1981 r., Postępowanie karne p. Webb, C-279/80, ECLI:EU:C:1981:314.
  18. wyr. TS z 9.11.1995 r., RFN p. Radzie, C-426/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:367.
  19. wyr. TS z 11.1.2017 r., Królestwo Hiszpanii p. Radzie Unii Europejskiej, C-128/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:3,
  20. wyr. TS z 21.6.2018 r., Rzeczpospolita Polska p. Parlamentowi Europejskiemu i Radzie Unii Europejskiej, C-5/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:483,
  21. wyr. TS. z 13.5.1997 r., RFN p. Parlamentowi i Radzie, C-233/94, ECLI:EU:C:1997:231,
  22. wyr. TS z 12.12.2006 r., RFN p. Radzie i Parlamentowi, C-380/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:772,
  23. wyr. TS z 24.9.2019 r., Google LLC, C-507/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:772, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  24. wyr. TS z 9.11. 2010 r., Volker und Markus Schecke i Eifert, C-92/09 i C-93/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:662,
  25. wyr. TS z 22.11.2018 r., Swedish Match AB, C-151/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:938.
  26. wyr. TS z 21.12.2011 r., Danske Svineproducenter, C-316/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:863,
  27. wyr. TS z 8.5.2019 r., PI, C-230/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:383,
  28. wyr. TS z 19.4.2007 r., Aikaterini Stamatelaki, C-444/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:231,
  29. wyr. TS z 18.12.2007 r., A., C-101/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:804,
  30. wyr. TS z 20.5.1992 r., Ramrath, C-106/91, ECLI:EU:C:1992:230;
  31. wyr. TS z 17.12.1981 r., Frans-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Biologische Producten, 272/80, ECLI:EU:C:1981:312.
  32. wyr. TS z 16.5.2006 r., Watts, C-372/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:325,
  33. wyr. TS z 1.6.1999 r., Klaus Konle v. Austrii, C-302/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:271, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  34. wyr. TS z 23.11.1999 r., Postępowanie karne v. Arblade & Flis SARL i Bernard Leloup i Sofrage SARL, C-369/96 i 376/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:575;
  35. wyr. TS z 17.12.2015 r., Gergely Szemerey, C-330/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:826, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  36. wyr. TS z 28.6.2007 r., Bonn Fleisch, C-1/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:396,
  37. wyr. TS z 14.12. 2004 r., Komisja v. Niemcy, C-463/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:797,
  38. wyr. TS z 14.12.2004 r., Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft i S. Spitz, C-309/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:799,
  39. wyr. TS z 24.6.2019 r., Komisja Europejska p. Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531,
  40. wyr. TS z 6.11.2012 r., Komisja p. Węgrom, C-286/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:687,
  41. wyr. TS z 12.4.2018 r., Komisja Europejska p. Królestwu Danii, C-541/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:251,
  42. wyr. TS z 6.3.2014 r., Siragusa, C-206/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:126, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  43. wyr. TS z 7.5.1998 r., Clean Car Autoservice GmbH v. Landeshauptmann von Wien, C-350/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:205, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  44. wyr. TS z 29.2.1996 r., Skanavi, C-193/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:70, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  45. wyr. TS z 2.5.2019 r., Lavorgna Srl, C-309/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:350,
  46. wyr. TS z 29.7.2019 r., Funke Medien NRW GmbH, C-469/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:623,
  47. wyr. TS z 17.4.2008 r., Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België VZW and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v. Van Leuken, C-197/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:229, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  48. wyr. TS z 28.6.2007 r., Bonn Fleisch, C-1/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:396,
  49. wyr. TS z 22.11.2005 r., Mangold, C-144/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:709,
  50. wyr. TS z 19.1.2010 r., Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, ECLI:EU:C:2010:21.
  51. wyr. TS z 12.4.2018 r., Komisja Europejska p. Królestwu Danii, C-541/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:251,
  52. wyr. z 21.12.2011 r., Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration, C-465/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:867, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  53. wyr. TS z 24.1.2008 r., Roby Profumi, C-257/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:35, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  54. wyr. TS z 29.1.2008 r., Promusicae, C-275/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  55. wyr. TS z 6.11.2003 r., Lindqvist, C-101/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596,
  56. wyr. TS z 26.6. 2007 r., Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone i in., C-305/05 , ECLI:EU:C:2007:383,
  57. wyr. TS z 8.2.2018 r., Komisja Europejska p. Republice Greckiej, C-590/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:77,
  58. wyr. TS z 28.1.1999 r., Unilever, C-77/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:30,
  59. wyr. TS z 29.2.1996 r., Skanavi, C-193/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:70,
  60. wyr. TS z 7.7.1976 r., Lynne Watson and Alessandro Belmann, C-118/75, ECLI:EU:C:1976:106, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  61. wyr. TS z 17.9.2002 r., Baumbast i “R”, C-413/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:493,
  62. wyr. TS z 11.7.2002 r., Mary Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, C-60/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:434,
  63. wyr. TS z 29.11.2001 r., François De Coster, C-17/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:651,
  64. wyr. TS z 14.2.2008 r., Dynamic Medien, C-244/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:85, pkt 50;
  65. wyr. TS z 12.7.2001 r., B.S.M. Smits, małżonce Geraets, przeciwko Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ i H.T.M. Peerbooms przeciwko Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen,C-157/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:404,
  66. wyr. TS z 28.1.2010 r., Komisja v. Francja, C-333/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:44,
  67. wyr. TS z 12.4.2018 r., Komisja Europejska p. Królestwu Danii, C-541/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:251,
  68. wyr. TS z 29.6.2017 r., Komisja Europejska p. Republice Portugalskiej, C-126/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:504, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  69. wyr. TS z 30.1.2019 r., Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG, C-220/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:76,
  70. wyr. TS z 21.5.2019 r., Komisja Europejska p. Węgrom, C-235/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:432,
  71. wyr. TS z 11.6.2015 r., Berlington, C-98/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:386,
  72. wyr. TS z 12.9.2019 r., Zoran Maksimovic i in., C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 i C-148/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:723, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  73. wyr. TS z 13.11.2018 r., Čepelnik, C-33/17, EU:C:2018:896, pkt 42, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  74. wyr. TS z 14.7.2005 r. Holandia v. Komisja, C-452/00, ECLI:EU:C:2005:452,
  75. wyr. TS z 14.4.2005 r., Królestwo Belgii v. Komisja, C-110/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:223,
  76. wyr. TS z 14.9.2006 r., Alfa Vita Vassilopoulos, C-158/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:562,
  77. wyr. TS z 23.10.1997 r., Harry Franzén, C-189/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:504,
  78. wyr. TS z 28.9.2006 r., Ahokainen i Leppik, C-434/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:609,
  79. wyr. z 4.5.2016 r., Polska p. Parlament i Rada, C-358/14, EU:C:2016:323,
  80. wyr. TS z 6.9.2017 r., Republika Słowacka i Węgry p. Radzie Unii Europejskiej, C-643/15 i C-647/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:631,
  81. wyr. TS z 10.12.2002 r., British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, C-491/01, EU:C:2002:741,
  82. wyr. TS z 16.6.2015 r., Gauweiler i in., C-62/14, EU:C:2015:400,
  83. wyr. TS z 9.3.2010 r., ERG i in., C-379/08 i C-380/08, EU:C:2010:127,
  84. wyr. TS z 2.5.2019 r., Lavorgna Srl, C-309/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:350,
  85. wyr. TS z 8.2.2018 r., Lloyd’s of London, C-144/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:78,
  86. wyr. TS z 6.11.2014 r., Mac GmbH, C-108/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2346,
  87. wyr. TS z 7.4.1981 r., United Foods BV v. Belgia, C-132/80, ECLI:EU:C:1981:87,
  88. wyr. TS z 2.2.1994 r. w sprawie C-315/92 Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb v. Clinique Laboratories i Estée Lauder, ECLI:EU:C:1994:34,
  89. wyr. TS z 16.12. 2000 r., Komisja v. Belgia, C-217/99, ECLI:EU:C:2000:638;
  90. wyr. TS z 25.10.2001 r. Finalarte i in., sprawy połączone C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52-54/98 i C-68-71/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:564,
  91. wyr. TS z 26.2.1991 r., Komisja v. Grecja, C-198/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:79,
  92. wyr. TS z 26.2.1991 r., Komisja v. Włochy, C-180/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:78,
  93. wyr. TS z 26.2.1991 r., Komisja v. Francja, C-154/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:76,
  94. wyr. TS z 26.5.2005 r., Komisja p. Francji, C-212/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:313,
  95. wyr. TS z 6.3. 2018 r., SEGRO i Horváth, C-52/16 i C-113/16, EU:C:2018:157,
  96. wyr. TS z 28.4.1998 r., Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employes Prives, C-120/95, ECLI:EU:C:1998:167,
  97. wyr. TS z 23.9.2003 r., Margarethe Ospelt i Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung, C-452/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:493.
  98. wyr. TS z 18.12.1997 r., Molenheide i in., C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 i C-47/96, EU:C:1997:623, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  99. wyr. TS z 22.10.2015 r., Impresa Edilux i SICEF, C-425/14, EU:C:2015:721,
  100. wyr. TS z 28.1.1992 r., Komisja v. Belgia, C-300/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:37,
  101. wyr. TS z 28.1.1992 r., Klaus Bachmann v. Kingdom of Belgium, C-204/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:35,
  102. wyr. TS z 10.5.1995 r., Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën, C-384/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:126,
  103. wyr. TS z 25.7.1991 r., Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivia v. Departamento de Sanidad y Seguridad Social de Cataluña, C-1/90, ECLI:EU:C:1991:327.
  104. wyr. TS z 10.7.1991 r., Komisja v. Francja, C-294/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:302,
  105. wyr. TS z 8.2.1983 r., Komisja v. Zjednoczone Królestwo, 124/81, ECLI:EU:C:1983:30,
  106. wyr. TS z 6.6.1984 r. Melkunie, Rec. 1984, C-97/83, s. 2367.
  107. wyr. TS z 11.9.2003 r., Anomar, C-6/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:446,
  108. wyr. TS z 29.7.2019 r., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, C-654/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:634,
  109. wyr. TS z 7.9.2016 r., Pilkington Group Ltd, C-101/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:631, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  110. wyr. TS z 23.4.2015 r. LG Display Co. Ltd, C-227/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:258, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  111. wyr. TS z 11.7.2007 r., Alrosa Company Ltd p. Komisji, T-170/06, ECLI:EU: T:2007:220,
  112. wyr. TS z 5.5.1998 r., National Farmers’ Union i in., C-157/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:191,
  113. wyr. TS z 25.3.2004 r., Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi i in., C-480/00 i n, EU:C:2004:179, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  114. wyr. TS z 19.9.2000 r., Ampafrance SA, C-177/99 i 181/99, ECLI:EU:C:2000:470,
  115. wyr. TS z 2.12. 2004 r., Komisja v. Holandia, C-41/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:762,
  116. wyr. TS z 6.6. 1996 r., Komisja v. Włochy, C-101/94, Rec. 1996, s. I-2691,
  117. wyr. TS z 9.7.1997 r., Parodi, C-222/95, Rec. 1997, s. I-3899,
  118. wyr. TS z 4.12. 1986 r., Komisja v. Niemcy, C-205/84 Rec. 1986, s. 3755,
  119. wyr. TS z 19.1.1999 r., Postępowanie karne v. Donatella Calfa, C-348/96, Rec. 1999, s. I-11,
  120. wyr. TS z 26.5.2005 r., Komisja v. Francja, C-212/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:313;
  121. wyr. TS z 29.4.2004 r. Komisja v. Niemcy, C-387/99, Rec. 2004, s. I-3751,
  122. wyr. TS z 3.2.1982 r., Seco, C-62/81 i C-63/81, Rec. 1982, s. 223,
  123. wyr. TS z 11.4.2019 r., Repsol Butano SA, C-473/17 i C-546/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:308,
  124. wyr. TS z 12.6.2003 r., Schmidberger Internationale Transporte & Planzüge v. Austria, C-112/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:333.
  125. wyr. TS z 26.5. 2005 r., Komisja v. Francja, C-212/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:313,
  126. wyr. TS z 13.5.2003 r., Komisja v. Zjednoczone Królestwo, C-98/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:273,
  127. wyr. TS z 23.12. 2015 r., Scotch Whisky Association, C-333/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:845,
  128. wyr. TS z 13.3.2008 r., Komisja/Belgia, C-227/06, EU:C:2008:160,
Wykaz orzeczeń do prawa do obrony/Index of judgements concerning the right of defence

  1. wyr. TS z 5.10.2014 r., Sophie Mukarubega, C‑166/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2336.
  2. wyr. TS z 22.10.2020 r., P, Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG, C‑702/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:857
  3. wyr. TS z 26.9.2018 r., Belastingdienst/Toeslagen, C‑175/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:776,
  4. wyr. TS z 29.7.2019 r., Massimo Gambinow, C‑38/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:628,
  5. wyr. TS z 29.1.2013 r., Ciprian Vasilem Radu, C‑396/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:39,
  6. wyr. TS z 26.2.2013 r., Stefano Melloni, C‑399/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107,
  7. wyr. TS z 3.7.2014 r., Kamino International Logistics, C-129/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2041, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  8. wyr. TS z 21.9.1989 r., Hoechst przeciwko Komisji, C-46/87 i C-227/88, ECLI:EU:C:1989:337,
  9. wyr. TS z 13.9.2018 r., UBS Europe SE, C‑358/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:715, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  10. wyr. TS z 13.2.1979 r., Hoffmann‑La Roche/Komisja, C-85/76, ECLI:EU:C:1979:36,
  11. wyr. TS z 2.10.2003 r., ARBED/Komisja, C‑176/99 P, ECLI:EU:C:2003:524,
  12. wyr. TS z 26.9.2013 r., Texdata Software, C‑418/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:588, (krajowe postępowanie karowe/national fining proceedings),
  13. wyr. TS z 14.9.2010 r., P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, C‑550/07, ECLI:EU:C:2010:512,
  14. wyr. TS z 7.1.2004 r., Aalborg Portland i in./Komisja, C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P i C‑219/00 P, ECLI:EU:C:2004:6,
  15. wyr. TS z 25.10.2011 r., Solvay/Komisja, C‑110/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:687
  16. wyr. TS z 18.12.2008 r., Sopropé, C‑349/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:746,
  17. wyr. TS z 15.10.2002 r., Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij i in./Komisja, C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, od C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P i C-254/99 P, ECLI:EU:C:2002:582,
  18. wyr. TS z 1.7.2010 r., Knauf Gips/Komisja, C‑407/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:389,
  19. wyr. TS z 5.6.2018 r., Nikolay Kolevow, C‑612/15, ECLI:EU:C:2018:392,
  20. wyr. TS z 21.11.1991 r., Technische Universität München, C‑269/90, ECLI:EU:C:1991:438,
  21. wyr. TS z 22.10.2020 r., P, Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG, C‑702/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:857,
  22. wyr. TS z 19.12.2013 r., Siemens i in./Komisja, C‑239/11 P, C‑489/11 P i C‑498/11 P, niepublikowany, ECLI:EU:C:2013:866,
  23. wyr. TS z 6.11.2012 r., Otis i in., C‑199/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:684,
  24. wyr. TS z 13.2.2020 r., TX, C‑688/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:94,
  25. wyr. TS z 6.9.2012 r., Trade Agency, C‑619/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:531,
  26. wyr. TS z 24.6.2019 r., Komisja Europejska przeciwko Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, C‑619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531.
  27. wyr. TS z 9.11.2017 r., Ispas, C‑298/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:843,
  28. wyr. TS z 10.7.2014 r., Kalliopi Nikolaou, C‑220/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2057,
  29. wyr. TS: z 8.7.1999 r., Hüls AG przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, C-199/92, ECLI:EU:C:1999:358,
  30. wyr. TS z 8.7.1999 r., Montecatini SpA przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, C-235/92, ECLI:EU:C:1997:362,
  31. wyr. Sądu z 6.10.2005 r., Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd i Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, T-22/02 oraz T-23/02, ECLI:EU: T:2005:349,
  32. wyr. TS z 5.9.2019 r., AH, C‑377/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:670, pkt 41-42,
  33. wyr. TS z 5.7.2016 r., Atanas Ognyanovow, C-614/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:514
  34. wyr. Sądu z 4.4. 2019 r., Amador Rodriguez Prieto przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej, T-61/18, ECLI:EU:T:2019:217,
  35. wyr. TS z 12.7. 2012 r., Komisja/Nanopoulos, T-308/10 P, ECLI:EU: T:2012:370,
  36. wyr. TS z 19.9.2019 r., EP, C-467/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:765,
  37. wyr. TS z 19.9.2018 r., Emil Milev, C-310/18, ELCI:EU:C:2018:732,
  38. wyr. TS z 5.9.2019 r., Postępowanie karne przeciwko AH i in., C-377/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:670,
  39. wyr. TS z 21.1.2016 r., Eturas i in., C-74/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:42,
  40. wyr. TS z 12.4.2013 r., CISAC/Komisja, T-442/08, ECLI:EU:T:2013:188,
  41. wyr. TS z 22.11.2012 r., E. ON Energie AG p. Komisja Europejska, C-89/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:738,
  42. wyr. Sądu z 28.3.2019 r., Pometon SpA, przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej, T-433/16, ECLI:EU:T:2019:201,
  43. wyr. TS z 28.3.2012 r., BD/Komisja, F-36/11, ECLI:EU:F:2012:49,
  44. wyr. TS z 29.4.2015 r., CJ/ECDC, F-159/12 i F-161/12, ECLI:EU:F:2015:38,
  45. wyr. TS: z 16.7.2009 r., Postępowanie karne przeciwko Tomaszowi Rubachowi, C-344/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:482,
  46. wyr. TS z 18.12.2007 r., Fazenda Pública – Director Geral das Alfândegas przeciwko ZF Zefeser – Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda, C-62/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:811.
  47. wyr. TS z 5.4.2016 r., Pál Aranyosi i Robert Căldăraru przeciwko Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, C-404/15 i C-659/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198,
  48. wyr. TS z 27.9.2017 r., Peter Puškár, C-73/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:725,
  49. wyr. TS z 7.12.2010 r., VEBIC, C-439/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:739,
  50. wyr. TS z 6.9.2013 r., H.N., C-604/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:302,
  51. wyr. Sądu z 10.11.2017 r., Icap i in./Komisja, T-180/15, ECLI:EU:T:2017:795, pkt 257.
  52. wyr. Sądu z 22.3.2018 r., Stavytskyi/Rada, T-242/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:166,
  53. wyr. TS z 24.9.2019 r., HSBC Holdings plc, i in. przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej , T-105/17, ECLI:EU:T:2019:675,
  54. wyr. TS z 12.1.2017 r., Timab Industries i Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) przeciwko Komisji Europejskiej, C-411/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:11,
  55. wyr. TS z 19.6.2014 r., FLS Plast A/S, C‑243/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2006,
  56. wyr. TS z 26.9.2013 r., The Dow Chemical Company/Komisja, C‑179/12 P, EU:C:2013:605,
  57. wyr. TS z 4.10.2013 r., Eni/Komisja, C‑508/11 P, EU:C:2013:289,
  58. wyr. TS z 5.12.2019 r., Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB), C‑671/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1054, opinia rzecznik Generalnej V. Trstenjak z 3.5.2007 r. w sprawie C-62/06, Fazenda Pública – Director Geral das Alfândegas przeciwko ZF Zefeser – Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda, ECLI:EU:C:2007:264,
  59. wyr. TS z 21.9.2006 r., JCB Service przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, C-167/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:594,
  60. wyr. TS z 12.2.2019 r., Postępowanie karne przeciwko RH, C-8/19, ECLI:EU:C:2019:110,

If you are interested in our research and would like to get involved, please contact us by e-mail.


m.szpyrka@inp.pan.pl