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 (France) 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 law: 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)? C 28/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 25.1.2021 2. Is Article 45(4) TFEU, as regards the differentiation which it makes between an employee of the public administration and an employee of a private company, also contrary to the rules of the EU Treaty which provide for the prohibition of discrimination of persons (see, in this regard, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 March 2014, Biasucci and Others v. Italy), in addition to those provisions already cited above? 3. Is Italian Law No 508/99 also contrary to the rules of the European Union which prohibit measures having equivalent effect, provided for in Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty and subsequently included in Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a result of the reform brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon, such measures being prohibited by the EU Treaty since they tend to treat nationals of some Member States less favourably than nationals of other Member States as regards the free movement of persons, salary and social security matters as well as working conditions? (1) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 November 2020 — Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. v Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter (Case C-575/20) (2021/C 28/41) Language of the case: Hungarian Referring court Fővárosi Törvényszék Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Apollo Tyres (Hungary) Kft. Defendant: Innovációért és Technológiáért Felelős Miniszter Question referred Can Directive 2003/87/EC, (1) and paragraph 3 of Annex I thereof in particular, be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of deciding upon the inclusion of the [combustion of fuels] by a particular installation in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union (the EU ETS), [the calculation of] the total rated thermal input of the installation should take account of the fact that certain equipment that is part of the installation in question is subject to a restriction (which has been verified)? (1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 15 Volume 007 P. 631). Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Portugal) lodged on 4 November 2020 — NM, NR, BA, XN, FA v Sata Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos, SA (Case C-578/20) (2021/C 28/42) Language of the case: Portuguese Referring court Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores.