• EN - English
  • HU - magyar
Parliamentary question - E-002657/2021Parliamentary question
E-002657/2021

Breach of free movement of capital

Question for written answer  E-002657/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Loránt Vincze (PPE)

The Commission has acknowledged in its answers that the discriminatory provisions of the Slovak Act on Restitution of 2003[1] concerning nationality and place of residence in the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2004 were in breach of EU law and that claims deriving from the infringement which are guaranteed by EU law must, according to the Commission[2], be enforced before the Slovak courts.

An individual who was a citizen of another Member State wished to recover their agricultural property, contesting the compliance of the discriminatory provisions of the legislation with EU law. Their application was rejected by the Supreme Court of Slovakia[3], which also failed to request a preliminary ruling and among other things contested the applicability of EU law.

Under the relevant Slovak procedural rules[4], if a Slovak administrative court ruling does not conform to the decision of the EU bodies, a retrial may take place within three months of the reason for the retrial becoming known.

As a general rule, does EU law require the application to be upheld or an application for a preliminary ruling to be initiated in the event of the Cilfit criteria being met?

Last updated: 31 May 2021
Legal notice - Privacy policy