Judgment of the Court Fourth Chamber of 15 April 2021, AV Jugement global, C-221/19

• Date: 15 April 2021
• Year: 2021

10

the Court examines the purpose of that provision and holds that it is intended to make the effects of

reorganisation measures or winding-up proceedings on pending proceedings subject to the law of the

Member State in which those proceedings are pending. In the light of such a purpose, it would not be

logical to exclude the effects produced by reorganisation measures on a pending lawsuit from the

application of that law, where that action concerns potential liabilities, which, by means of such

reorganisation measures have been transferred to another entity. Thus, Article 32 must apply to one

or more of the credit institution’s assets and liabilities which are subject to reorganisation measures,

as is the case with the potential liability at issue in the main proceedings.

In the second place, as regards the extent of the effects of the reorganisation measures governed by

the law of the Member State in which the lawsuit is pending, the Court observes that the law of that

Member State governs all the effects which such measures may have on such proceedings, whether

procedural or on the merits.

Therefore, it follows from Article 3(2) and Article 32 of Directive 2001/24 that the effects, both

procedural and substantive, of a reorganisation measure on a pending lawsuit on the merits are

limited to those determined by the law of the Member State in which that lawsuit is pending.

Furthermore, the Court points out, first, that the recognition, in the main proceedings, of the effects

of the decisions of 29 December 2015, in so far as it is capable of calling into question the judicial

decisions already taken in favour of VR, would be incompatible with the general principle of legal

certainty. Secondly, to recognise reorganisation measures taken by the competent authority of the

home Member State after an action h as been brought in another Member State which have the effect

of modifying the relevant legal framework for the resolution of the dispute which gave rise to that

action with retroactive effect, and which could lead the court before which the action has been

brought to dismiss it, would constitute a limitation on the right to an effective remedy, within the

meaning of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Eur opean

Union.

The Court concludes that Article 3(2) and Article 32 of Directive 2001/24, read in the light of the

principle of legal certainty and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

preclude recognition, without any further conditions, in ongoing legal proceedings on the merits of

the effects of a reorganisation measure, such as the decisions of 29 December 2015, where such

recognition has the result that the credit institution to which the liabilities had been transferred by the

first reorganisation measure can no longer be sued for the purposes of those proceedings, thereby

calling in to question the judgments already delivered in favour of the applicant who is the subject of

those proceedings.

V. JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2021, AV (Jugement global), C-221/19

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matte rs – Framework Decision

2008/909/JHA – Article 8(2) to (4) – Article 17(1) and (2) – Article 19 – Taking into account, for the purposes

of an aggregate sentence, of a conviction delivered in another Member State, which must be enfo rced in

the Member State in which that judgment is delivered – Conditions – Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA –

Article 3(3) – Concept of ‘interference with a sentence or its execution’ which must be taken into account

in the course of new criminal proceedings initiate d in a Member State other than that in which the ruling

was delivered