C 28/24 EN Official Journal of the 25.1.2021

Questions referred 1. Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’) (1), in particular Article 2(a) and Article 39, to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that is to be enforced exists even if, in a Member State, the judgment debtor is obliged, after summary examination in adversarial proceedings, albeit relating only to the binding nature of the force of res judicata of a judgment given against him in a third State, to pay to the party who was successful in the third State proceedings the debt that was judicially recognised in the third State, when the subject matter of the proceedings in the Member State was limited to examination of the existence of a claim derived from the judicially recognised debt against the judgment debtor?

2. If question 1 is answered in the negative:

Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 45, 46 and 52, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the existence of one of the grounds set out in Article 45 of Regulation No 1215/2012, enforcement must be refused if the judgment under review is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 2(a) or Article 39 of Regulation No 1215/2012 or the application in the Member State of origin on which the judgment is based does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012?

3. If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative:

Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 42(1)(b), 46 and 53, to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an application for refusal of enforcement, the court of the Member State addressed is compelled to assume, on the basis solely of the information provided by the court of origin in the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that a judgment that falls within the scope of the regulation and is to be enforced exists?

(1) OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 30 October 2020 — Criminal proceedings against IR (Case C-569/20) (2021/C 28/38) Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings IR

Questions referred Are Article 8(2)(b) in conjunction with recitals 36 to 39 of Directive 2016/343 (1) and Article 4а(1)(b) in conjunction with recitals 7 to 10 of Framework Decision 2009/299 to be interpreted as covering a case in which the accused person was informed of the list of charges against him, in its original version, and then, due to the fact that he has fled, objectively cannot be informed of the trial and is defended by a lawyer appointed ex officio with whom he has no contact?

If this is answered in the negative: Is a national provision (Article 423(1) and (5) of the NPK), pursuant to which no provision is made for any legal protection against investigative measures carried out in absentia and against a conviction handed down in absentia where the accused person, after having been informed of the original list of charges, is in hiding and therefore could not be informed of the date and place of the trial or of the consequences of non-appearance, consistent with Article 9 in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 8(4) of Directive 2016/343 and Article 4а(3) in conjunction with Article 4a(1)(d) of Framework Decision 2009/299? 25.1.2021 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 28/25

If this is answered in the negative: Does Article 9 of Directive 2016/343 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter have direct effect?

(1) Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation () lodged on 28 October 2020 — BV v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie (Case C-570/20) (2021/C 28/39) Language of the case: French

Referring court Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings Appellant in the appeal on a point of : BV

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie

Questions referred 1. Is the requirement of the clarity and the foreseeability of the circumstances in which concealments in returns relating to VAT payable may be the subject of a duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature satisfied by national rules such as those described [in the request for a preliminary ruling]?

2. Is the requirement of the necessity and the proportionality of the duplication of such penalties satisfied by national rules such as those described [in the request for a preliminary ruling]?

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Potenza (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2020 — OM v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR and Others (Case C-571/20) (2021/C 28/40) Language of the case: Italian

Referring court Tribunale di Potenza

Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: OM

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Conservatorio di Musica ‘E.R. Duni’ di Matera

Questions referred 1. Is Article 45(4) TFEU compliant with or clearly contrary to the rules and principles in the Treaties of the European Union (Article 45(1), (2) and (3) TFEU) which provide for the free movement of persons within the Member States of the European Union and, in particular, Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 (the so-called ‘Bolkestein Directive’) (1), implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 59 of 26 March 2010 (published in GURI No 94 of 23 April 2010)?