- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-772/21, Brink’s Lithuania: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB v Lietuvos bankas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the euro against counterfeiting — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 — Article 6(1) — Payment service providers engaged in the processing of banknotes and their distribution to the public — Decision ECB/2010/14 — Article 6(2) — Detection of unfit euro banknotes — Automated fitness checking of banknotes — Minimum standards published on the website of the European Central Bank (ECB) and amended from time to time — Personal scope — Extent of cash handlers’ obligations — Binding force — Principle of legal certainty)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0772
62021CA0772
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
12.6.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 205/9
(Case C-772/21, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) Brink’s Lithuania)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the euro against counterfeiting - Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 - Article 6(1) - Payment service providers engaged in the processing of banknotes and their distribution to the public - Decision ECB/2010/14 - Article 6(2) - Detection of unfit euro banknotes - Automated fitness checking of banknotes - Minimum standards published on the website of the European Central Bank (ECB) and amended from time to time - Personal scope - Extent of cash handlers’ obligations - Binding force - Principle of legal certainty)
(2023/C 205/10)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: ‘Brink’s Lithuania’ UAB
Other party to the appeal proceedings: Lietuvos bankas
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14 of the European Central Bank of 16 September 2010 on the authenticity and fitness checking and recirculation of euro banknotes, as amended by Decision ECB/2012/19 of the European Central Bank of 7 September 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that the minimum standards referred to in that provision do not apply to cash handlers when they carry out automated fitness checks in respect of euro banknotes.
2.However, Article 3(1) and Article 10(1) of Decision ECB/2010/14, as amended, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2009 of 18 December 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that cash handlers are required to adopt the necessary measures to remedy a situation where an inspection by a national central bank of a Member State whose currency is the euro has shown that their banknote handling machines are not capable of detecting, below a 5 % tolerance level, that euro banknotes are unsuitable for recirculation.
3.Article 6(2) of Decision ECB/2010/14, as amended by Decision ECB/2012/19, read in conjunction with Article 3(5) of Decision ECB/2010/14, as amended, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring cash handlers to comply with the European Central Bank’s minimum standards referred to therein when they carry out automated fitness checks in respect of euro banknotes.
Language of the case: Lithuanian