Provisional text

delivered on 5 June 2025 (1)

Case C‑18/24

NOVIS Insurance Company, NOVIS Versicherungsgesellschaft, NOVIS Compagnia di Assicurazioni, NOVIS Poisťovňa a.s.

Česká národní banka

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Directive 2009/138/EC – Article 155 – Infringement of the laws of the host Member State by an insurance undertaking with its head office in another Member State – Competencies of the supervisory authority of the host Member State )

I.Introduction

The questions referred in the present case concern the demarcation of the powers of the authorities of the Member States to supervise the conduct of business by insurance undertakings and to impose penalties on them for infringements of the provisions in force in those Member States. Indeed, while the Solvency II Directive (2) establishes the principle that an insurance undertaking’s activities are generally supervised by the authorities of the Member State in which that undertaking has its head office, the referring court seeks to establish the limits within which the principle of supervision by the home Member State applies and to clarify in which situations EU law allows derogations from that principle.

More precisely, the reference for a preliminary ruling in the present case concerns the power of the Czech supervisory authority to impose administrative sanctions on a Slovak insurance undertaking for infringements allegedly committed in the Czech Republic in the course of its business conducted through a branch established in the latter Member State. The infringements found by the Czech supervisory authority were allegedly related to the insurance undertaking’s failure to comply with the PRIIPs Regulation (3) and the IDD. (4)

II.Legislative framework

A.European Union law

1.Solvency II Directive

Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive stipulates:

‘1. Where the supervisory authorities of a host Member State establish that an insurance undertaking with a branch or pursuing business under the freedom to provide services in its territory is not complying with the legal provisions applicable to it in that Member State, they shall require the insurance undertaking concerned to remedy such irregularity.

The supervisory authorities of the home Member State shall, at the earliest opportunity, take all appropriate measures to ensure that the insurance undertaking concerned remedies that irregular situation.

The supervisory authorities of the home Member State shall inform the supervisory authorities of the host Member State of the measures taken.

3. Where, despite the measures taken by the home Member State or because those measures prove to be inadequate or are lacking in that Member State, the insurance undertaking persists in violating the legal provisions in force in the host Member State, the supervisory authorities of the host Member State may, after informing the supervisory authorities of the home Member State, take appropriate measures to prevent or penalise further irregularities, including, in so far as is strictly necessary, preventing that undertaking from continuing to conclude new insurance contracts within the territory of the host Member State.

…

Member States shall ensure that in their territories it is possible to serve the legal documents necessary for such measures on insurance undertakings.

4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not affect the power of the Member States concerned to take appropriate emergency measures to prevent or penalise irregularities within their territories. That power shall include the possibility of preventing insurance undertakings from continuing to conclude new insurance contracts within their territories.

6. Where an insurance undertaking which has committed an infringement has an establishment or possesses property in the Member State concerned, the supervisory authorities of that Member State may, in accordance with national law, apply the national administrative penalties prescribed for that infringement by way of enforcement against that establishment or property.

…’

2.PRIIPs Regulation and IDD

Article 6(1), Article 8(3)(c)(ii), (iii), (iv), and 8(3)(f) of the PRIIPs Regulation lay down the requirements concerning the content of the key information document on packaged retail investment products that is provided to retail investors.

The IDD, on the other hand, lays down rules concerning the taking-up and pursuit of the activities of insurance and reinsurance product distribution in the European Union.

B.Czech law

Paragraph 110 of zákon č. 277/2009 Sb., o pojišťovnictví (Law No 277/2009 on insurance), which implements Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive into the Czech legal order, provides:

‘(1) Should the Česká národní banka [(‘Czech National Bank’)] find that an insurance undertaking from another Member State, which operates its insurance or reinsurance business on the territory of the Czech Republic on the basis of the right to establish branches or on the basis of the freedom to provide services on a temporary basis, is not complying with any obligations that apply to such activities in the Czech Republic, it shall oblige that insurance undertaking to remedy the deficiencies within a period set by the Czech National Bank.

(2) In ascertaining or verifying the facts referred to in subparagraph 1, the Czech National Bank may require, from such an insurance undertaking, documents, information, and the necessary explanation pertaining to its activities on the territory of the Czech Republic, and the insurance company is obliged to comply.

(3) Should an insurance undertaking from another Member state fail to remedy the deficiencies referred to in subparagraph 1 within the time limit specified, the Czech National Bank shall inform the supervisory authority of the home Member State thereof.

(4) If remedial measures imposed by the supervisory authority of the home Member State do not result in remedying the deficiencies found in the activities of an insurance undertaking from another Member State, or if no remedial measures have been imposed, the Czech National Bank shall impose on such an insurance undertaking a fine or a ban on entering into new insurance or reinsurance contracts on the territory of the Czech Republic, and on expanding obligations from any such contracts already concluded. The Czech National Bank shall inform the supervisory authority of the home Member State of that decision. At the same time, the Czech National Bank may also refer the case to the European Supervisory Authority with a request for cooperation.

(5) In urgent cases, the Czech National Bank shall proceed in accordance with subparagraph 4, without applying the procedure set out in subparagraphs 1 to 3’.

The IDD, in turn, has been implemented into the Czech legal order by zákon č. 170/2018 Sb., o distribuci pojištění a zajištění (Law No 170/2018 on the distribution of insurance and reinsurance).

III.Facts, procedure and questions referred

NOVIS is a commercial company with its head office in Slovakia that is engaged in the business of life insurance. The company has a branch in the Czech Republic.

The supervisory authority of the host Member State, Czech National Bank, found NOVIS to have committed three administrative offences and imposed a fine of 1 000 000 Czech koruny (CZK) (approximately EUR 40 000) on the company as a result.

The first alleged offence consisted of a breach of the obligations under Article 6(1), Article 8(3)(c)(ii), (iii), (iv), and 8(3)(f) of the PRIIPs Regulation. In particular, the company allegedly failed to ensure that the information in its Key Information Documents (‘KIDs’) about its products was accurate, reliable, clear, consistent with any binding contractual documentation, and not misleading. In addition, it allegedly failed to ensure that those documents contained all the information in the quality and scope required by directly applicable EU legislation.

The second and third alleged administrative offences consisted in breaches of the obligations laid down in Law No 170/2018, which transposes the IDD into the Czech legal order. Specifically, the second administrative offence consisted of NOVIS breaching its obligations as an insurance undertaking to lay down, maintain, and apply rules for controlling the activities of independent intermediaries acting on its behalf, with a focus on verification of due compliance with the law. The third administrative offence consisted in the insurance undertaking breaching its obligation to provide advice to the customer before arranging insurance with a savings component.

In the course of the proceedings conducted by the Czech supervisory authority, NOVIS challenged the authority’s jurisdiction to conduct infringement proceedings. The company argued that the authority had failed to comply with Paragraph 110 of Law No 277/2009 transposing Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive into the Czech legal order. According to the company, that provision of EU law and its domestic transposition required the Czech supervisory authority to inform the authority of NOVIS’s home Member State about the alleged breach and then wait for any measures by that authority. The Czech supervisory authority was therefore not authorised to independently conduct sanction proceedings with respect to a company with its head office in another Member State.

The Czech supervisory authority, on the other hand, took the view that the national provisions on verification to determine breaches of the IDD and the PRIIPs Regulation constituted separate legislation independent of the Solvency II Directive. The authority also argued that the national provisions that applied to such verification took precedence over the provisions transposing the latter directive.

NOVIS brought an action against the decision of the Czech supervisory authority before the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court, Czech Republic). In its action, the company argued that the Czech supervisory authority lacked jurisdiction. The court shared the view presented by the Czech supervisory authority in the contested decision and dismissed the action.

That judgment was appealed by NOVIS before the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic), which is the referring court. The court is called upon to examine the appeal in cassation brought by the company, according to which Paragraph 110 of Law No 277/2009, which transposes Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive into Czech law, must be applied in the exercise of any supervision pertaining to the business of insurance. NOVIS submits that, while admittedly it was penalised for breaches of the IDD and the PRIIPs Regulation, those are regulations governing the insurance sector.

The Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) therefore decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Must Article 155 of [the Solvency II] Directive be interpreted such that it also applies to cases of supervision by the supervisory authority of a host State over compliance, by an insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations laid down by [the PRIIPs] Regulation or based on [the IDD]?

(2) If so, does Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive imply priority powers for the supervisory authority of the home State, and the obligation on the part of the supervisory authority of the host State to first exhaust the notification and remedial procedures under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of that article of the directive, even in the case of imposing administrative [penalties] under paragraphs 5 and 6 of that article of the directive?’

The request for a preliminary ruling was received by the Court on 11 January 2024. Written observations were submitted by the parties to the main proceedings, the Czech, Italian and Slovak governments, and the European Commission. The parties to the main proceedings, the Czech Government and the Commission were represented at the hearing, which took place on 6 March 2025.

IV.Analysis

A.First question referred

By its first question, the referring court seeks to clarify whether Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive also applies to cases where the supervisory authority of a host Member State supervises compliance, by an insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations laid down by the PRIIPs Regulation or based on the IDD.

Generally speaking, Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive deals with the competencies and powers relating to the supervision of insurance undertakings by the authorities of the Member State in which the undertaking in question has its head office, and by the authorities of the Member State in whose territory that undertaking pursues the business of insurance under the freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment. The article in question sets out the procedure to be followed, as a rule, by the authorities of the host Member State in a situation where an insurance undertaking infringes the laws in force in their territory. Before taking measures against a particular insurance undertaking, those authorities are to contact the authorities of the Member State where the undertaking’s head office is located.

It should be noted that there are two possible approaches to resolving the interpretative problem raised by the first question referred. The first approach consists in analysing the provisions of the EU legislation that imposes on individuals the relevant obligation, such as the PRIIPs Regulation or the IDD, in order to determine whether that legislation also governs the division of competencies and powers among the authorities of the Member States to supervise compliance with the obligation. Only if it is found that that particular legal act does not resolve the issue should the answer be sought in other pieces of legislation.

The starting point of the second approach is to analyse a regulation such as Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive, which deals with the supervisory competencies and powers of the authorities of the Member States, and which appears to establish a general principle. That regulation should be interpreted in order to determine whether it really is a general principle and also whether its scope covers the supervision of compliance with other legal acts. Next, it is necessary to examine whether those other legal acts modify the solution resulting from the general regulation.

In the present opinion, when addressing the concerns raised by the referring court, I will use the latter approach, as that was also the approach adopted by the court in its reference for a preliminary ruling when analysing the issue central to the present case. The referring court takes the view that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive can be interpreted in two ways.

The first interpretation assumes that the qualification in Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive that the provision refers to ‘the legal provisions applicable … in [the host] Member State’ means that it applies only to the supervision of compliance with the obligations imposed on insurance undertakings by that directive. The second interpretation, in turn, is based on the view that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive applies to the exercise of supervision over all obligations that are imposed on insurance undertakings under EU law.

On the one hand, the wording of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive appears to favour the latter interpretation. The article in question uses broad wording to define the powers and responsibilities of supervisory authorities in a situation where an insurance undertaking having its head office in a Member State is not complying with the legal provisions applicable to it in the Member State where it has a branch or pursues business under the freedom to provide services. There is no qualification in the provision that would limit its scope of application to infringements of the provisions of the Solvency II Directive or the provisions transposing that directive into the legal order of the Member State concerned.

On the other hand, the interpretation of a provision of EU law should not be limited to its literal wording. It is also necessary to examine the context of the regulation and the objectives that the legal act in which the regulation is included seeks to achieve. (5) That is especially true in the case of regulations that demarcate powers and responsibilities related to the exercise of supervision over the fulfilment of certain obligations by individuals. It is difficult to consider those regulations in isolation from the provisions of the legal act in which those obligations are regulated. Nor should the interpretation of such regulations ignore the broader normative context in which the provision in question operates.

Therefore, in order to answer the first question referred, Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive must be subjected to a contextual and teleological analysis. Before proceeding with that analysis, however, I will present the assumptions on which the directive is based.

1.Solvency II Directive

Article 1(1) of the Solvency II Directive stipulates that the directive lays down, inter alia, rules concerning the taking-up and pursuit of direct insurance and reinsurance activities within the European Union. The directive applies to direct life and non-life insurance undertakings which are established in the territory of a Member State or which wish to become established there (first sentence of Article 2(1)).

The Solvency II Directive uses the terms ‘home Member State’ and ‘host Member State’. Generally speaking, the former term concerns the Member State in which the head office of the insurance undertaking is situated (Article 13(8)). The latter term means, in principle, ‘the Member State, other than the home Member State, in which an insurance … undertaking has a branch or provides services’ (Article 13(9)).

The directive assumes that the taking-up of the business of direct insurance is subject to prior authorisation (Article 14(1)). An insurance undertaking may apply for such authorisation to the supervisory authorities of its home Member State (Article 14(2)). Importantly, the authorisation granted by the supervisory authorities of that home Member State permits the insurance undertaking to pursue business throughout the European Union (Article 15(1)). ‘Supervisory authority’ means the national authority or the national authorities empowered by law or regulation to supervise insurance or reinsurance undertakings (Article 13(10)).

31.The predecessor directives to the Solvency II Directive were also based on the premiss that obtaining authorisation in one Member State allowed the business of insurance to be pursued in other Member States. An extension of that premiss was the principle that supervision of the business pursued by such an insurance undertaking was, in principle, exercised by the authorities of its home Member State also with respect to the business pursued by that undertaking in other countries through a branch or under the freedom to provide services. (6)

32.The questions referred by the referring court essentially seek to determine the limits within which the principle of supervision by the home Member State applies under the Solvency II Directive (first question), and to clarify in what situations EU law derogates from that principle and related procedures (second question).

33.The supervision of insurance undertakings is addressed in Chapter III (‘Supervisory authorities and general rules’) of Title I of the Directive, in Articles 27 to 39. It follows from those provisions that the main objective of the supervision governed by those regulations is ‘the protection of policy holders and beneficiaries’ (Article 27). Supervision includes the verification on a continuous basis of the proper operation of the insurance business and of the compliance with supervisory provisions by insurance undertakings (second sentence of Article 29(1) of the Solvency II Directive).

34.Pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Solvency II Directive, entitled ‘General supervisory powers’, Member States are to ensure that the supervisory authorities have the power to take preventive and corrective measures to ensure that insurance and reinsurance undertakings comply with ‘the laws, regulations and administrative provisions with which they have to comply in each Member State’.

35.The supervision of the activities of insurance undertakings having their head office in another Member State is referred to in Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive, to which the preliminary questions refer. That provision is found in Section 3 (‘Competencies of the supervisory authorities of the host Member State’) of Chapter VIII (‘Right of establishment and freedom to provide services’) of Title I (‘General rules on the taking-up and pursuit of direct insurance and reinsurance activities’) of the Solvency II Directive.

36.Under that provision, where the supervisory authority of a host Member State establishes that an insurance undertaking with a branch or pursuing business under the freedom to provide services in its territory ‘is not complying with the legal provisions applicable to it in that Member State’, it is to require the insurance undertaking concerned to remedy such irregularity (Article 155(1)).

37.Where the insurance undertaking concerned fails to take the necessary action, the supervisory authority of the host Member State concerned is to inform the supervisory authority of the home Member State. The latter authority must, at the earliest opportunity, take all appropriate measures to ensure that that ‘irregular situation’ is remedied. It is to inform the supervisory authorities of the host Member State of those measures (Article 155(2)).

38.If the measures taken prove to be inadequate or are lacking and the insurance undertaking persists in violating ‘the legal provisions in force in the host Member State’, the supervisory authority of that Member State may, after informing the supervisory authority of the home Member State, take appropriate measures to prevent or penalise further ‘irregularities’ (Article 155(3)).

39.Subsequent paragraphs of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive stipulate that ‘paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not affect’ the power of the Member States to take appropriate emergency measures to prevent or penalise ‘irregularities’ within their territories (Article 155(4)) or the power of the Member States to penalise ‘infringements’ within their territories (Article 155(5)).

40.Finally, Article 155(6) provides that the supervisory authorities of the Member State where an insurance undertaking has an establishment or possesses property may, in accordance with national law, apply the administrative penalties prescribed for that infringement by way of enforcement against that establishment or property.

41.By its first question, the referring court seeks to determine whether ‘the legal provisions applicable … in [the host] Member State’ referred to in Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive refer only to the provisions of that directive or to other regulations of EU law as well. In order to answer the question thus posed, I will now discuss Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive in the context of other provisions of that directive to which the provision is linked.

Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive and financial supervision

42.The general regulations on the supervision of insurance activities found in Chapter III (‘Supervisory authorities and general rules’) of Title I are accompanied by a more specific provision that uses the concept of ‘financial supervision’. Article 30(2) of the directive stipulates that ‘financial supervision’ includes verification, with respect to the entire business of the insurance and reinsurance undertaking, of its state of solvency, of the establishment of technical provisions, of its assets and of the eligible own funds, in accordance with the rules laid down or practices followed in the home Member State under provisions adopted at EU level. (7)

43.Pursuant to Article 30(1), ‘the financial supervision of insurance … undertakings, including that of the business they pursue either through branches or under the freedom to provide services, shall be the sole responsibility of the home Member State’. Article 30(3), in turn, stipulates that if the supervisory authorities from Member States other than the home Member State have reason to consider that the activities of an insurance undertaking might affect its financial soundness, they are to inform the supervisory authorities of the home Member State of that undertaking.

44.From the point of view of contextual interpretation, a question arises about the relationship between Article 30(1) and Article 30(3) of the Solvency II Directive, which sets out what the supervisory authorities of the home Member State and of the host Member State should do when they find irregularities that fall within the scope of ‘financial supervision’ within the meaning of that article (‘sole responsibility of the home Member State’), on the one hand, and Article 155 of the Directive, which concerns the procedure to be followed when it is found that an insurance undertaking is in breach of the legal provisions applicable in the host Member State, on the other.

45.Since Article 30(1) and Article 30(3) of the Solvency II Directive sets out the powers and responsibilities of the supervisory authorities of the home and host Member States in the case of the cross-border pursuit of the business of insurance, Article 155 of the Directive – which also addresses those issues – should apply to different types of situations. Otherwise, a single legal act would contain provisions that regulate the same issue differently.

46.Further guidance on the relationship between the scope of Article 30 of the Solvency II Directive and Article 155 thereof is provided by the case-law of the Court. In the judgment in Commission v Italy, (8) the Court had the opportunity to consider analogous provisions of the directive that was the predecessor to the Solvency II Directive.

47.Article 9(1) of Directive 92/49/EEC (9) stipulated that financial supervision of an insurance undertaking, including that of the business it carries on either through branches or under the freedom to provide services, was to be the sole responsibility of the home Member State. That phrase (‘shall be the sole responsibility of the home Member State’) is also found in Article 30(1) of the Solvency II Directive. Moreover, according to the correlation table included in the latter directive, Article 30 thereof corresponds to Article 9 of Directive 92/49.

48.Article 40 of Directive 92/49, in turn, essentially corresponded to Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive. Indeed, according to the correlation table included in the latter directive, Article 155 thereof corresponds to Article 40 of Directive 92/49.

49.Article 40(3) to (5) of the former directive provides for an arrangement analogous to that currently found in Article 155(1) to (3) of the latter directive. Article 40(7) of Directive 92/49, in turn, corresponds to the wording of Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive. Both of those provisions stipulate, using similar wording, that regulations requiring the host Member State to inform the home Member State of an insurance undertaking’s failure to comply with the legal provisions applicable in the former Member State (namely Article 155(1), (2) and (3) of the Solvency II Directive and Article 40(3) to (5) of Directive 92/49) do not affect the power of the Member States to penalise insurance undertakings for infringements of the legal provisions applicable within their territories.

50.In the case giving rise to the judgment in Commission v Italy (10), the Commission alleged that Italy, among other things, had infringed Article 9 of Directive 92/49 by exercising control over the manner in which insurance premiums were calculated by insurance undertakings having their head office in other Member States but which pursued their business in Italy, and by imposing penalties on such undertakings.

51.In its judgment, the Court dismissed the allegation. The Court clarified that Article 9 of Directive 92/49 established the principle that financial supervision is exercised by the Member State in which the insurance undertaking has its head office. (11) At the same time, the Court reaffirmed in its judgment that the home Member State had exclusive competence to exercise such supervision.

52.Next, as regards the actions of the Italian Republic which the Commission considered to be in breach of EU law, the Court clarified that Article 9 of Directive 92/49 defined what financial supervision ‘includes’. At the same time, the Court noted that ‘financial supervision’ did not extend to supervision of the commercial conduct of insurance undertakings. (12)

53.Finally, the Court added obiter dictum that as regards Article 40 of Directive 92/49, it was sufficient to state, on the one hand, that the Commission had not criticised the Italian Republic for having disregarded the obligations laid down in paragraphs 3 to 5 of that article. (13) On the other hand, the Court noted that Article 40(7) of Directive 92/49 confirmed the power of the host Member State to penalise infringements committed on its territory. (14)

54.However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the present case from the latter statement. As the Court itself acknowledged, the Commission did not allege that the Italian Republic had infringed Article 40 of Directive 92/49. Nevertheless, the latter statement may suggest that supervision of the manner in which insurance premiums were calculated was not financial supervision within the meaning of Article 9 of the directive, and that the insurance undertaking’s infringements in that regard should have been penalised by the host Member State under Article 40(7) of the same directive.

55.At the same time, it must be emphasised that the ‘infringement’ penalised in the case that giving rise to the judgment in Commission v Italy (15) did not concern an infringement within the territory of Italy of the provisions of Directive 92/49 by an insurance undertaking having its head office in another Member State, as that directive did not harmonise the rates of insurance premiums. (16) In other words, if the Court’s judgment is understood to mean that under Article 40(7) of Directive 92/49 the Italian Republic had the power to penalise infringements of a national provision that concerned the manner of calculating insurance premiums, then it was an infringement of a provision that concerned a matter not regulated by that directive.

56.Interpreted in that way, the judgment in Commission v Italy (17) could provide valuable guidance on the relationship between Article 30 (‘financial supervision’) and Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive. It could also be helpful in determining the material scope of the latter provision. Indeed, the analysis of that judgment could result in the conclusion that, unlike ‘financial supervision’ within the meaning of Article 30 of the Solvency II Directive, Article 155 of that directive could concern not only infringements of the provisions of that directive, but also other regulations in force in the host Member State concerning the commercial conduct of insurance undertakings that do not fall within the scope of the directive.

57.However, the questions referred in the present case do not go that far, as they do not concern the exercise of supervision over compliance with any regulations in force in the host Member State. In fact, they relate to the exercise of supervision over compliance with the provisions of EU law, namely the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD, and the power to penalise infringements of those provisions in the territory of the host Member State. It must therefore be examined whether the conclusions that may be drawn from the judgment in Commission v Italy (18) are supported by an analysis of the relationship between Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive, on the one hand, and the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD, on the other.

PRIIPs Regulation

58.The PRIIPs Regulation lays down uniform rules on the format and content of the key information document to be drawn up by PRIIP manufacturers and on the provision of the key information document to retail investors (Article 1). It applies to PRIIP manufacturers and persons advising on, or selling, PRIIPs (Article 2(1)).

59.In addition, the PRIIPs Regulation defines ‘competent authorities’ as the national authorities designated by a Member State to supervise the requirements the regulation places on PRIIP manufacturers and the persons advising on, or selling, the PRIIP (Article 4(8)).

60.Article 22 et seq. of the PRIIPs Regulation concern administrative sanctions and other measures applicable to situations which constitute an infringement of its provisions. However, there is no provision in the PRIIPs Regulation that directly regulates the demarcation of the competencies and powers of the authorities of the home and host Member States to supervise compliance with the provisions of the regulation.

61.It is true that the PRIIPs Regulation does include provisions that address the obligations and powers of the Member States in relation to monitoring the market for insurance products covered by that regulation. Those provisions are contained in Chapter III, which is entitled ‘Market monitoring and product intervention powers’ and includes Articles 15 to 18.

62.Pursuant to Article 15(2) of the PRIIPs Regulation, ‘competent authorities shall monitor the market for insurance-based investment products which are marketed, distributed or sold in or from their Member State’. (19) Article 17(1) of the regulation stipulates that ‘a competent authority may prohibit or restrict [certain activities with respect to insurance-based investment products and types of financial activity or practices of an insurance or reinsurance undertaking] in or from its Member State’.

63.However, that monitoring does not appear to concern compliance with the obligations explicitly governed by the PRIIPs Regulation or EU law, as pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) of the PRIIPs Regulation, an authority may take the action referred to in Article 17(1) if it is satisfied that the existing regulatory requirements under EU law applicable to the insurance-based investment product, activity or practice do not sufficiently address the risks identified by the competent authorities. The issue, therefore, concerns the monitoring of the market for insurance-based products and the potential need for interventions due to shortcomings in EU regulations identified by the supervisory authority.

64.The answer to the question on the demarcation of the competencies and powers of the authorities of the home Member State and the host Member State with respect to supervising compliance with the PRIIPs Regulation should, therefore, be sought outside that regulation.

65.There is nothing in the PRIIPs Regulation itself that prevents the demarcation of those powers and competencies from being determined by the provisions of the Solvency II Directive. Moreover, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the PRIIPs Regulation, where PRIIP manufacturers subject to the regulation are also subject to the Solvency II Directive, the regulation and the directive both apply. Thus, the regulation implies the simultaneous application of legal acts to a specific category of entities that develop and manufacture insurance-based products falling within its scope. This also includes insurance undertakings, (20) to which the Solvency II Directive applies.

IDD

66.The IDD lays down rules concerning the taking-up and pursuit of the activities of insurance and reinsurance distribution in the European Union. (21) The directive imposes obligations on both insurance intermediaries and insurance undertakings. (22) Indeed, the referring court’s questions are based on the assumption that NOVIS, as an insurance undertaking, infringed the provisions implementing the provisions of that directive into Czech law. (23)

67.Unlike the PRIIPs Regulation, the IDD contains provisions specifying how to proceed in the event of breaches committed by an insurance intermediary in the course of its activities in another Member State under the freedom to provide services or freedom of establishment. Those provisions constitute Articles 4 to 9 of the IDD. They are structured in a manner similar to Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive.

67.The IDD assumes that if the authorities of the host Member State find a breach, they first inform the authorities of the home Member State. (24) Where, despite the measures taken by the home Member State or because those measures prove to be inadequate or are lacking, the insurance intermediary persists in acting in a manner that is clearly detrimental to the interests of host Member State consumers, or to the orderly functioning of insurance and reinsurance markets, the competent authority of the host Member State may take appropriate measures to prevent further irregularities. (25)

68.The provisions of the IDD which relate to the division of competencies between the home and host Member States concern breaches committed by insurance or reinsurance intermediaries or ancillary insurance intermediaries. However, the scope of those provisions does not extend to insurance undertakings.

69.The IDD thus imposes on insurance undertakings obligations analogous to those it imposes on insurance intermediaries. (26) On the other hand, the directive does not regulate the division of competencies and powers between the authorities of the home and host Member States with respect to supervising the activities of insurance undertakings.

70.In that context, however, it should be noted that the IDD (with respect to insurance intermediaries) and the Solvency II Directive (with respect to insurance undertakings) similarly regulate the powers of the home and host Member State authorities to supervise the activities of insurance intermediaries and insurance undertakings, respectively.

71.It may be argued, therefore, that it was the intention of the EU legislature to apply analogous solutions with respect to supervision of compliance with the obligations arising from the IDD in relation to intermediaries under that directive, and in relation to insurance undertakings under the Solvency II Directive. Such an arrangement would allow Member States to designate the same authorities to supervise compliance with the obligations arising from the IDD by all entities on which the directive imposes such obligations. That would mean that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive is applicable to supervision by Member State authorities also in so far as it concerns supervision of compliance with the IDD.

72.It remains to be verified whether the conclusions drawn from a contextual interpretation of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive are in line with those drawn from a teleological interpretation of that provision.

74.Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive is included in the chapter of the directive that deals, as its title suggests, with the right of establishment and freedom to provide services. The issue here is not only access to the market of Member States other than the Member State where the undertaking has its head office, but also the day-to-day pursuit of business in the territory of those Member States.

75.Moreover, it follows from recital 11 of the Solvency II Directive that the directive constitutes an essential instrument for the achievement of the internal market, and thus insurance undertakings authorised in their home Member States should be allowed to pursue their activities throughout the European Union by establishing branches or by providing services. The recital further clarifies that ‘it is therefore appropriate to bring about such harmonisation as is necessary and sufficient to achieve the mutual recognition of authorisations and supervisory systems, and thus a single authorisation which is valid throughout the Community and which allows the supervision of an undertaking to be carried out by the home Member State’.

76.At the same time, the main objective of regulation and supervision by the home Member State, namely the adequate protection of policy holders and beneficiaries, is set out in recital 16. Ensuring adequate protection for those groups of entities requires supervision not only when an insurance undertaking gains access to the market of another Member State, but also supervision of the day-to-day business of the undertaking and ensuring that it complies with the legal provisions applicable in individual Member States.

77.This leads to the conclusion that a teleological interpretation of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive likewise supports the interpretation that the provision in question applies to a case where the supervisory authority of a host Member State supervises compliance, by an insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations relating to the commercial conduct of such insurance undertakings provided for in other EU legislation, unless the latter provides an alternative solution in that regard.

78.6. Conclusion regarding the first question

79.Taking into account the linguistic interpretation of Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive, (27) supported by the conclusions from its contextual (28) and teleological (29) interpretation, I take the view that the first question should be answered in the affirmative. My proposed answer to the first question, therefore, is that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive must be interpreted as also applying to cases where the supervisory authority of a host Member State supervises compliance, by an insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations laid down by the PRIIPs Regulation or based on the IDD.

B. Second question referred

80.By its second question, the referring court essentially seeks to clarify whether Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the supervisory authorities of the host Member State are obliged to first exhaust the notification and remedial procedures under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of that article of the directive, even in the case of the imposition of administrative penalties under paragraphs 5 and 6 of that article for infringements committed in the territory of that Member State of the obligations provided for in the PRIIPs Regulation or in the IDD.

81.The second question was formulated by the referring court in the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, to the effect that Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive also applies to cases where the supervisory authority of a host Member State supervises compliance, by an insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations laid down by the PRIIPs Regulation or based on the IDD. From my analysis of the first question, it appears that the first question should be answered in the affirmative. I will therefore also analyse the second question.

82.As a preliminary remark, it should be noted that the second question is based on the assumption that the penalties imposed on NOVIS and contested in the main proceedings are ‘penalties’ within the meaning of Article 155(5) and (6) of the Solvency II Directive.

83.That said, the second question should be considered primarily from the point of view of Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive, as that provision concerns the power of the host Member State to penalise infringements within its territory. Article 155(6) of the directive, in turn, appears to confirm the principle expressed in paragraph 5 and to emphasise the possibility of the penalties imposed being enforced against the property of the insurance undertaking located in the territory of that Member State.

84.As is apparent from the reference for a preliminary ruling, NOVIS was penalised for infringements of the PRIIPs Regulation and of the IDD. (30) Therefore, in order to answer the second question referred, I will first analyse the provisions of the PRIIPs Regulation and of the IDD concerning the imposition of administrative penalties and sanctions for an infringement of those legal acts. I will then analyse those provisions of the Solvency II Directive that are directly concerned by the second question.

85.1. Administrative penalties and sanctions for infringing the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD

86.The issue of administrative sanctions and other measures applicable to infringements of the PRIIPs Regulation is governed by Article 22 thereof.

87.It follows from Article 22(1) of the PRIIPs Regulation that, ‘without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities’, the regulation requires Member States to establish administrative sanctions and measures applicable to situations which constitute an infringement of that regulation and to take all necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented. Article 23, in turn, stipulates that competent authorities are to exercise their powers to impose sanctions in accordance with the regulation and national law: either directly; or in collaboration with other authorities; or under their responsibility by delegation to such authorities; or by application to the competent judicial authorities.

88.NOVIS was fined directly by the Czech supervisory authority for, among other things, infringing the obligations provided for under Article 6(1) of the PRIIPs Regulation and Article 8(3) thereof. (31) Article 24(1) of the PRIIPs Regulation provides that Article 24 applies, inter alia, to infringements of Article 6(1) and Article 8(3) thereof.

89.At the same time, it follows from Article 24(2) of the PRIIPs Regulation that ‘the competent authorities shall have the power to impose, in accordance with national law, at least the … administrative sanctions and measures [listed below in Article 24(2)]’. Those measures include ‘an order prohibiting the marketing of a PRIIP’ (Article 24(2)(b)) and ‘administrative fines’ (Article 24(2)(e)).

90.Recital 24 of the PRIIPs Regulation clarifies the meaning of Article 24 of the regulation in so far as it relates to measures imposed by competent authorities. Pursuant to that recital, the regulation does not introduce a passport allowing for the cross-border sale or marketing of PRIIPs to retail investors or alter existing passport arrangements. Furthermore, it does not alter the allocation of responsibilities between existing competent authorities under existing passport arrangements. Under the recital, the ‘competent authority of the Member State where the PRIIP is marketed should be responsible for supervision of the marketing of that PRIIP. The competent authority of the Member State where the product is marketed should always have the right to suspend the marketing of a PRIIP within their territory in cases of non-compliance with this Regulation’. (32) There is no reason to assume that the situation is different in the case of ‘administrative sanctions’ which the competent authorities of the Member States also ‘shall have the power to impose’ according to Article 24(2) of the regulation. In connection with infringements that occur within the territory of the host Member State, the competent authority designated by that state should also be able to directly impose administrative sanctions.

91.Thus, the PRIIPs Regulation assumes that while the issue of the division of supervisory powers and competencies among the authorities of the Member States as such is not directly regulated therein, (33) the Member State in whose territory a given insurance-based product is available should be able to respond to infringements occurring in that territory. Such a response by the Member State appears to be, from the perspective of the regulation and in light of the clarifications in recital 24 thereof, ‘without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities’.

92.It is apparent from the reference for a preliminary ruling that NOVIS was also penalised for infringements of the IDD. (34) That directive provides, in terms of penalties for infringements, for solutions analogous to those in the PRIIPs Regulation.

93.It follows from Article 31(1) of the IDD that ‘without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities and the right of Member States to provide for and impose criminal sanctions, Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities may impose administrative sanctions and other measures applicable to all infringements of the national provisions implementing this Directive, and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented’. Pursuant to Article 31(3) of the IDD, competent authorities are to exercise their investigatory powers and powers to impose sanctions, in accordance with their national legal frameworks, in any of the following ways: either directly; or in collaboration with other authorities; or by application to the competent judicial authorities. That provision does not therefore preclude penalties for infringements of the directive from being imposed directly by the host Member State.

94.The analysis of Article 22 of the PRIIPs Regulation and Article 31 of the IDD leads to the conclusion that both legal acts stipulate that ‘without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities’, Member States must establish administrative sanctions and measures applicable to situations which constitute an infringement of those legal acts and must take all necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented.

95.In light of the answer that I propose to give to the first question referred, the division of supervisory powers and competencies between the authorities of the home and host Member States is decided by the Solvency II Directive. It remains to be examined, therefore, whether – also from the point of view of the latter directive – the obligation and power to penalise infringements of the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD can indeed be exercised while disregarding the procedure regulated in Article 155(1) to (3) of the Solvency II Directive and, at the same time, ‘without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities’ to which that directive refers.

97.This part of the discussion should begin with the following observation: there are two provisions in Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive which stipulate that ‘paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not affect the power’ of the Member States provided for in those provisions. The two provisions are found in Article 155(4) and (5) of the directive.

98.The Court has not yet had the opportunity to interpret those provisions. However, the Court’s case-law on the interpretation of the predecessor to the Solvency II Directive provides valuable guidance on how to interpret those provisions.

99.The question referred in the case giving rise to the judgment in Onix Asigurări (35) sought to clarify whether Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 precluded the supervisory authority of the host Member State, in cases of urgency and for the protection of the interests of insured persons and other persons who may benefit from the insurance cover taken out, from issuing injunctions specifically prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts within its territory with respect to an insurance undertaking with its head office in another Member State. The basis for issuing such an injunction was the failure, whether pre-existing or otherwise, to satisfy a precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, such as the requirement of good repute with respect to a person linked by organisation and capital to the insurance undertaking. (36)

100.Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 established a solution similar to that currently found in Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive, as pursuant to the former provision ‘paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 shall not affect the emergency power of the Member States concerned to take appropriate measures to prevent irregularities within their territories. This shall include the possibility of preventing insurance undertakings from continuing to conclude new insurance contracts within their territories’.

101.In interpreting Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49, the Court noted that the provision in question cannot be understood to refer only to measures relating to irregularities already ‘committed’ in the territory of the host Member State. In the view of the Court, that provision must be interpreted as permitting the adoption of measures to prevent future irregularities from occurring. (37) In other words, this means that the host Member State may take measures with respect to an insurance undertaking in the event of irregularities or the risk of irregularities. (38)

102.The Court also found that Article 40 of Directive 92/49 establishes ‘two distinct procedures’ whereby the competent authorities of the host Member State may, in the event of ‘irregularities’ or the risk of irregularities, take measures in respect of an insurance undertaking with its head office in another Member State.

103.The first procedure is governed by Article 40(4) and (5) of the directive. Those provisions of Directive 92/49 correspond to Article 155(2) and (3) of the Solvency II Directive.

104.The second procedure, in turn, is governed by Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49. In the words of the Court: ‘[that provision] does not provide, by way of derogation from the procedure referred to in Article 40(4) and (5) thereof, a requirement, for the Member State of the provision of services concerned, either to notify the competent authorities of the home Member State of any such irregularities, or to inform those authorities of its intention to take appropriate measures’. (39)

105.The Court drew a further distinction between the two procedures governed, respectively, by Article 40(4) and (5) of Directive 92/49, and by Article 40(6) thereof.

106.First, the procedure stipulated in Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 can only be applied in cases of emergency where the immediate adoption of measures is required. (40)

107.Second, the Court appears to take the position that the host Member State may not use the measures adopted under the procedure stipulated in Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 to usurp the powers enjoyed by the Member State in which the insurance undertaking concerned has its head office under the principle of supervision by the home Member State. (41) The measures taken by that Member State must not only be justified by the emergency but also be ‘only protective’, so that the host Member State, in applying those measures, does not encroach on the sphere of supervision reserved for the home Member State. The Court found that: ‘Those measures apply, therefore, only pending a decision by the competent authorities of the home Member State, drawing the conclusions … from the evidence identified by the Member State of the provision of services’. (42)

108.It should be added that the judgment in Onix Asigurări (43) concerned the authority of the home Member State to issue authorisation and verify that the conditions for issuing such authorisation are met. That this is a sphere reserved for the home Member State was determined by Article 4 of Directive 92/49, whose normative content is similar to that of Article 14 of the Solvency II Directive.

105.As mentioned earlier, (44) the equivalent of Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 is Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive. The guidance from the Onix Asigurări judgment (45) regarding Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 can therefore be used in interpreting Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive. That means that the host Member State may take measures on the basis of the latter provision, disregarding Article 155(1), (2) and (3), so long as, first, this is justified by an emergency, and second, that the measures, by their nature, do not encroach on the sphere reserved for the home Member State.

106.However, the questions referred in the present case do not concern Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive. There is, furthermore, no indication that the referring court takes the view that the Czech supervisory authority adopted the measures with respect to NOVIS citing an urgent need to implement them with respect to that undertaking.

107.The second question, for its part, explicitly refers to, inter alia, Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive. It should be noted, however, that both Article 155(4) of the directive and Article 155(5) thereof provide for a derogation from the procedure provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3 of that article. (46) Hence, if the interpretation of Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49 from the judgment in Onix Asigurări (47) is relevant to the interpretation of Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive, it is also indirectly relevant to the interpretation of Article 155(5) thereof.

108.The conclusion is that Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive applies to situations where there is a need for urgent action in order to prevent undesirable consequences resulting from ‘irregularities’ committed by an insurance undertaking. In such a case, the host Member State does not have to respect the procedure provided for in Article 155(1) to (3) of the directive. However, the Member State must ensure that the measures it takes do not undermine the principle of supervision by the home Member State, and those measures must be narrowly defined.

109.Following that line of reasoning, Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive also exempts Member States from the obligation to respect the procedure set out in Article 155(1) to (3) of the directive. At the same time, the measures applied by the host Member State on the basis of the powers referred to in Article 155(5) of the directive must not undermine the principle of supervision by the home Member State.

110.Finally, Article 155(5) of the directive must concern powers of the host Member State that differ in their nature from those referred to in Article 155(4) thereof. Otherwise, the simultaneous existence of those two provisions in the Solvency II Directive would be pointless.

111.Article 155(4) of the Solvency Directive II deals – as does Article 155(1) thereof – with responding to ‘irregularities’ or the risk of irregularities. The fact that both those provisions refer to the same type of situations (‘irregularities’) explains the reasons why, in the judgment in Onix Asigurări, (48) the Court attached so much importance to the requirement that the exercise by the host Member State of the powers referred to in Article 155(4) of the Solvency II Directive must not encroach on the sphere of supervision reserved for the home Member State. (49) Indeed, within that sphere, Member State authorities are obliged to follow the procedure provided for in Article 155(1) to (3) of the directive.

112.Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive, on the other hand, concerns penalising ‘infringements’ that occur within the territory of the host Member State. This does not, I believe, refer to the long-term unlawful operation of an insurance undertaking or the risk of such unlawful operation, which can only be remedied by intervening ‘at source’, namely in the Member State where the insurance undertaking in question has its head office. Indeed, such a state of affairs would amount to an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Article 155 of the directive. Rather, Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive concerns infringements that occur with respect to fulfilment of the obligations incumbent on the insurance undertaking in its relations with policy holders and beneficiaries present in the territory of the Member State concerned. Imposing such penalties does not undermine the core competence of the home Member State to supervise an insurance company whose head office is situated in that Member State.

113.That interpretation may also be supported by the judgment in Commission v Italy discussed above. (50) As a reminder, the case involved the imposition of penalties on an insurance undertaking for not complying with the law of the host Member State with respect to the calculation of insurance premiums that were applied to contracts concluded with policy holders in the host Member State. As mentioned earlier, (51) that judgment may suggest that Article 155(5) of the Solvency II Directive confirms the power of the host Member State to penalise infringements committed within its territory of legal provisions that govern the commercial conduct of insurance undertakings.

114.Finally, leaving the competence to impose penalties for infringements related to the pursuit of the business of insurance in the hands of the supervisory authorities of a given Member State, where those infringements concern obligations to policy holders and beneficiaries situated within the territory of that Member State, appears to be the most adequate and effective arrangement from the point of view of protecting those rightsholders in an effective and timely manner.

115.3. Conclusion regarding the second question

116.The provisions of the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD, on the one hand, and the Solvency II Directive, on the other, are therefore complementary in so far as they concern the imposition of penalties for infringements committed by the insurance undertaking within the territory of the host Member State.

117.That is because, on the one hand, the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD stipulate that ‘without prejudice to the supervisory powers of competent authorities’, Member States must establish administrative sanctions and measures applicable to situations in which those legal acts are infringed, and must take all necessary measures to ensure that they are implemented. (52)

118.On the other hand, the division of competencies and powers between the supervisory authorities of the home and host Member States is regulated by the Solvency II Directive. (53) In that regard, the authorities of the Member States must, in principle, follow the procedure provided for in Article 155(1) to (3) of the directive. However, Article 155(5) of the directive provides that, by way of derogation from that procedure, host Member States may exercise their power to penalise infringements within their territories.

119.In light of the compatible conclusions reached by interpreting the provisions of the PRIIPs Regulation and the IDD, on the one hand, and the Solvency II Directive, on the other, my proposed answer to the second question is that Article 155 of the latter directive must be interpreted as meaning that the supervisory authorities of the host Member State are not obliged to first exhaust the notification and remedial procedures under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of that article of the directive in the case of the imposition of administrative penalties under paragraphs 5 and 6 of that article for infringements committed in the territory of that Member State of the obligations provided for in the PRIIPs Regulation or in the IDD.

121.Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic) as follows:

(1)Article 155 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)

(2)must be interpreted as also applying to cases where the supervisory authority of a host Member State supervises compliance, by a insurance undertaking from another Member State, with the obligations laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) or by Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution.

(3)(2) Article 155 of the Solvency II Directive

(4)must be interpreted as meaning that the supervisory authorities of the host Member State are not obliged to first exhaust the notification and remedial procedures under paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of that article of the directive in the case of the imposition of administrative penalties under paragraphs 5 and 6 of that article of the directive for infringements committed in the territory of that Member State of the obligations provided for in the PRIIPs Regulation or in Directive 2016/97.

36Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraph 36).

37Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraphs 39 and 40).

38Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraph 45).

39Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraph 47).

40Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraphs 47 and 48).

41Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraphs 49, 52 and 53).

42Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraph 52).

43Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316, paragraph 49).

44See point 96 of the present Opinion.

45Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316).

46See point 93 of the present Opinion.

47Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316).

48Judgment of 27 April 2017, Onix Asigurări (C‑559/15, EU:C:2017:316).

49See point 103 of the present Opinion.

50Judgment of 28 April 2009, Commission v Italy (C‑518/06, EU:C:2009:270).

51See point 55 of the present Opinion.

52See point 91 of the present Opinion.

53See point 77 of the present Opinion.