Judgment of the Court of Justice Fifth Chamber, 16 May 2024, Fondee, C-695/22

• Date: 16 May 2024
• Year: 2024

13

The General Court states that to reach a different conclusion would be to deviate from the purpose of

the periodic penalty payment, which is to guarantee the effective application of EU law, such

application being an essential component of the rule of law, a value enshrined in Article 2 TEU.

That conclusion cannot be called into question by Poland’s argument that continuing to enforce the

interim measures despite the removal of the case in the main proceedings from the register goes

beyond the sole objective pursued by those measures, namely, primarily to guarantee the

effectiveness of the judgment on the substance. En effet, les astreintes imposées par les juridictions

de l’Union visent non seulement à garantir l’efficacité de l’arrêt au fond, mais également à faire

respecter les mesures provisoires et à dissuader, en l’occurrence, la Pologne de retarder la mise en

conformité de son comportement avec celles-ci. L’argumentation de la Pologne reviendrait à vider de

toute substance le mécanisme de l’astreinte, car elle permettrait qu’une partie manque délibérément

à l’obligation de se conformer aux mesures provisoires ordonnées en référé jusqu’à la fin du litige au

principal et porte ainsi atteinte à l’efficacité du droit de l’Union.

Similarly, Poland’s argument that enforcing periodic penalty payments makes the conclusion of a

settlement agreement less attractive cannot be upheld in view of the purpose of periodic penalty

payments and the fact that the removal of the case in the main proceedings from the register had

beneficial consequences for Poland in that the daily penalty ceased to be payable as from 4 February

2022 and not from the date of delivery of a judgment of the Court of Justice.

The General Court finds, lastly, that Article 101 of the Financial Regulation, contrary to Poland’s

submission, does not lay down any obligation on the part of the Commission to cancel an established

amount receivable. Furthermore, the conditions laid down for recovery by offsetting were satisfied

since the Commission did verify that Poland’s debt existed and determined the amount of that debt.

Consequently, the General Court dismissed the first plea in law. The second plea in law, alleging

failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons, was also dismissed as unfounded and the

General Court therefore dismissed the actions in their entirety.

IV. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), 16 May 2024, Fondee, C-695/22

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Markets in financial instruments –

Directive 2014/65/EU – Article 3 – Exemption from the application of Directive 2014/65/EU – Exempted

investment intermediary – Legislation of a Member State prohibiting that intermediary from transmitting

clients’ orders to an investment firm established in another Member State

Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court, Czech

Republic) in a dispute concerning the freedom of an intermediary to provide services on the markets

in financial instruments, the Court of Justice confirms that it is possible for an intermediary to whom